Don't Touch My Junk

[B_VinylBoy]

What's happening right now is an unacceptable incursion into our liberty...a blatant violation of our civil rights. To deny or make light of that fact demonstrates either an ignorant or irresponsible view of the fundamental basis of our rule of law.

It's a civil right that never has to be impeded on if people just followed procedure to begin with.

The same way you're making a moral decision based on what you've seen and read, I'm doing the same thing as well and we can disagree about that without it diverging into whether or not someone interprets law better than the other. I've seen the TSA videos and heard what people had to say about it. From my standpoint, people get frisked more thoroughly and aggressively trying to get into night clubs. And to repeat this one glaring fact again, the boy wouldn't have been frisked if he just went through the machine. I find it puzzling why some people are ignoring this fact but want to trumpet his cowardice as being some kind of epic stand for civil rights.

But let's pose this hypothetical... What happens if by some strange chance a case like this reaches the highest court of the land and the judges did find the TSA's current frisking procedures to be unconstitutional? Nothing because the TSA still have the option to frisk you and go through your baggage which in many ways is still just as daunting and embarrassing. I honestly don't connect with all of the noise this is generating but that doesn't mean that I don't understand why some people do.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I'm not talking about skin color. You are.

Actually HG brought mentioned "skin color" and not me. I responded to his claim.

And you ignored why I brought up rosa parks, even though I have now explained it twice, only to talk about racism or to compare civil rights fights. Of course, you never do care what was said, you would rather just write yet another lengthy troll based upon what you wish was said so you can strut around and be "insulted" and act all hurt and shocked.

That wasn't my goal and you ignorantly assumed I was talking about race when in reality I was talking about the actions of both instances. So let me spell it out for you - It takes courage to put your livelihood in jeopardy by doing something that is against the law to illustrate a much larger social injustice. That's what Rosa Parks did. The little boy who didn't want his junk touched is just a coward who didn't want to go through a full body scanner. He's no more of a champion of civil rights than you are with your bullshit statements and accusations.

Insulting you right now would be rather easy. But instead I will rather let your ignorance bask on its own because clearly the only immature boy that has to imply color and race in this thread is YOU. Don't take out your social insecurities on me.

 

[B_New End]

It takes courage to put your livelihood in jeopardy by doing something that is against the law to illustrate a much larger social injustice. That's what Rosa Parks did. The little boy who didn't want his junk touched is just a coward who didn't want to go through a full body scanner and got it on tape. He didn't break any laws. He's no more of a rebel than you are with your bullshit statements and accusations as to what I'm implying.

for the third time

Rosa Parks was surely the more brave one. However, my point was not who was more brave, or that this guy's cause was as dangerous as Rosa Parks.

Tallpatdude or whatever his name is said that this guy meant to do this, to cause a scene. I merely pointed out that Rosa Parks also rode the bus that day intending to cause a scene. It was planned well in advance.

So if planning to cause a scene to draw a line in the sand discounts the actual protest, then Rosa Parks should be discounted too, because contrary to popular belief, the Rosa Parks incident was not just a random moment in history. It was planned. Capice?

Now, that I have skipped the gradual progression of bolding and italicizing and sizing up, and just went straight for the win, you can go ahead and hand me your flaming crown of the the trolls +2

I win, by way of biggest and boldest.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Doesn't matter how large you type it, New End. I still think the comparison between John Tyner and Rosa Parks is ridiculous. I don't care how you try to spin the facts. You can either come to grips with that or continue to act like an idiot.

 

[HazelGod]

It's a civil right that never has to be impeded on if people just followed procedure to begin with.

This doesn't come close to making any sense. The procedures are a violation of your civil rights. You're essentially telling me that my rights wouldn't be violated if I just obeyed whatever I was told without concern for my rights being violated.

But let's pose this hypothetical... What happens if by some strange chance a case like this reaches the highest court of the land and the judges did find the TSA's current frisking procedures to be unconstitutional? Nothing because the TSA still have the option to frisk you and go through your baggage which in many ways is still just as daunting and embarrassing.

Because I have a great deal of respect for you, VB, I'll go through this again:
The "pat-down" being offered up by the TSA as an alternative to the active imaging scanners is a lie. A frisk or pat-down is known in legal circles as a "Terry search," and it involves a light search of a person's body for the purpose of assuring an officer that they are not carrying any weapon or other dangerous item. The name comes from the SCOTUS decision wherein the precedent was set, along with the conditions under which such a stop and search may be executed.

For the record, I have little issue with this type of frisking being employed at airport checkpoints for persons who have been identified as requiring additional screening.

What the TSA is doing now has been characterized by LEOs as a "custody search," which is a much more intrusive examination of a person's entire body. Only a strip and cavity search are more invasive. The conditions required to exist for an officer to legally perform a custody search are much narrower than those needed for a Terry stop...in virtually all circumstances, the person being searched will have been placed under arrest (hence the name custody search). Your equating the two types of searches is factually erroneous.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

HG: I think we're focusing on two different things here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're just looking at the pat down aspect while I'm looking at the entire procedure a person goes through at airline security. That could be why there's some confusion here.

I'm going to make a noble effort to explain myself thoroughly as possible here.
But first, let me post this link because it has a total of 24 minutes of unedited video of the incident. This allows us to construct a position that isn't tainted by any biased news source (like CNN or Fox) - John Tyner Refuses TSA Body Scanner, Patdown, Faces Fine, video | NowPublic News Coverage

After watching (or essentially listening) to the 24 minutes, I've come to the following assessments. Tyner was offered to go through the full body scanner and he refused it. His statement this around the 10 minute mark of the first video reflects this for he complains to authorities about how 80% of the people were going through the regular metal detectors and not getting pat downs, and he wanted to do that instead of going through the "X-Ray" (or full body scanner). This is also confirmed in part two of the video (which is accessible on the video player as well).

There's a lot of talk on this thread about what kind of pat down the TSA agents are giving people and why these pat downs are technically illegal, but keep in mind that Tyner was never frisked or patted down. At least there was no audio or visual evidence of this contained within the 24 minutes of video footage. Tyner refused that after a TSA agent gave him a detailed description of that specific procedure based on his own fear, suspicions and paranoia. To be honest, going by the description I know that I've received similar pat downs going into large night clubs. It's safe to say that the TSA agent was in no shape or fashion going to grab, fondle, peek at or dig into his private parts. At the very most, the agent's hand (which is most likely wrapped around a glove) would have lightly grazed the groin area. However, upon hearing about how the agent was going to feel his inseam Tyner then went on about arresting people for "touching his junk", molestation and sexual assault. But nobody touched him.

As a frequent traveller yourself, we both know that people are randomly screened at airports beyond the standard protocol. With the rough percentage he gave, that meant one out of five people were given the same alternative screening procedure so Tyner was not being unfairly targeted. People who are flying don't get to choose exactly how they are going to be screened at security gates. They are given a series of options, similar to several other people who were also in line going through security, all of which Tyner refused. That's why he was detained for a brief moment and his information was taken down by authorities. After all was said & done, he was denied access to catch his flight, given a refund for his ticket and he walked out of the airport on his own power. Unlike Rosa Parks who was arrested for her actions, but I don't want to derail our discussion with the ridiculous, chest-beating, "fight the power" nonsense of New End.

Again, I'll say this. I don't see how ANYONE can look at this and claim that Tyner is some kind of civil rights hero. Tyner tried to instigate a problem and capture the proposed injustice on video, only to embarrass himself in the process since TSA followed their orders to the letter. Nobody's civil rights were impeded on in this video. No threats to the Fourth Amendment were exposed either. In the end, he never got searched or touched. But he did get to bring his story to the web and to news organizations who did propagate it to being an attack on civil liberties.

 

[HazelGod]

HG: I think we're focusing on two different things here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're just looking at the pat down aspect...

No, I'm looking at the whole "new" procedure from soup to nuts, if you'll pardon the pun.

The active scanners present a multi-pronged violation of rights in that they require passengers to expose their bodies to a dose of high-energy ionizing radiation, and in that they effect a virtual strip search of your person.

The "alternative" custody search (seriously, stop calling it a pat-down) presents a clear violation of your rights as previously discussed.

Stepping beyond the legal technicalities, Tyner did nothing to embarrass himself. The TSA may have been following their procedure to the letter, but the same could be said of the Nazis sending Jews into the gas chambers. Who gives a flying fuck if procedure was followed if the procedure itself is illegal?

His video recording captures the intimidation tactics being employed by the TSA to force submission to screening techniques that violate our constitutionally protected rights. It exposes the true behavior of this agency and its callous disregard for law abiding citizens, and it provides documentary evidence that TSA mouthpieces have been lying to the public about the nature and degree of these measures.

As a frequent traveller yourself, we both know that people are randomly screened at airports beyond the standard protocol. With the rough percentage he gave, that meant one out of five people were given the same alternative screening procedure so Tyner was not being unfairly targeted.

This is a very myopic argument to make, as you're ignoring the TSA's publicly stated intent to roll these procedures out to every airport in the country and apply them to all passengers in the coming months.

After all was said & done, he was denied access to catch his flight, given a refund for his ticket and he walked out of the airport on his own power.

Actually, after his ticket was refunded, he was threatened with a civil suit and a $10,000 fine by the TSA for choosing not to go through the screening process to completion...it remains to be seen whether the government follows up on that threat, but I'd say that choosing to leave in the face of such an intimidation tactic is pretty damned courageous.

 

[BBCP]

John Tyner isn't a civil rights hero. However, he is one of the first to vocally protest and capture the incident. He's famous now because of him being one of the first to do so. Only time will tell if he BECOMES a civil rights hero. Remember, Rosa Parks was more than likely not the first to refuse to give up her seat, but she was the first highly publicized and recognized refusal.

My only bad encounter with a TSA agent was back in 2005 (I think) before all this enhances patdown stuff began. I had switched flights 5 or 6 times the day before because of weather canceling each flight (they eventually put me on a flight the next day after a tornado touched down AT THE AIRPORT) and was flagged for enhanced screening. I went through the metal detector, did not set it off, and was sent over to the side for more screening. When the FEMALE agent wanded me with the hand held detector, the metal snap on my pants set it off. I was told to unbutton and unzip my pants, and hold the flaps to the side so they could be inspected. When I asked to do it privately since I was not wearing underwear, I was told it was not possible. So, I did exactly what the TSA agent told me to do, flashing my cock to the entire Dulles International Airport security screening area. Thank goodness I am not modest. While it didn't really cause me many problems, it's still something that shouldn't have happened.

Today, I would opt out of the full body scanners. Not because of the images (I have cock and ass pics on here, I don't care about that) but because of the X-Ray radiation. I have a VERY large susceptibility to skin cancer. I'm 28 and have already have had 12 skin biopsies done, nearly 1/3 of them have come back pre-cancerous. I don't need more radiation that I can avoid.

These "enhanced" patdowns are very different from what they used to do. For men, the your buttocks are probed and your genitals are cupped. This came from a very trusted friend who flew domestically to see me about a week ago. He would not lie about something like that. There are also reports of agents requiring direct skin to hand (through gloves I would assume) contact with people's genitals, especially if someone is wearing a dress or baggy clothing. I've been frisked by police once, they did nothing like that.

I haven't decided what I will do next time I fly. I will definitely opt out of the X-ray screening, for reasons mentioned above. I remember what happened with the foot X-Ray machines when i was a kid, this REEKS of the same type of thing. When I'm given the patdown, I have 2 ideas about what to do.

1) Make the situation as uncomfortable as possible for the TSA agent. Moans, OH YEAH, baby that feels good, etc. Maybe even get myself worked up a bit so that he grabs a bone when he checks that area. This could be fun.

2) This one is my most likely choice. Insist on a witness for the patdown who is NOT a TSA agent. Either a police officer stationed in the airport or they allow me to videotape the patdown. If I feel anything goes beyond what should happen, I would report it immediately, directly to the police and NOT the TSA.

I've gone beyond the point where I give the government the benefit of the doubt. I do not and will not trust my government. I will question anything I see as against the Constitution, and this in my opinion violates the 4th Amendment. I will not give up my most basic liberty, that of the sanctity to decide what to do with my body and who to do it with, because these power mad people say I have to. I fully beleive in the statement by Ben Franklin, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." This has never been more true in the United States.

 

[HazelGod]

Well said, in toto.

 

[Whopper-lee]

Actually, I been thinking about going to the airports adleast 3 or 4 times just so I can to go thur these check points for the feel and pats all they wanna do!:tongue: Check my junk and tunk too:biggrin1:
Enjoy & Be Safe!
It amazes me how now so many can be so upset and touchy about this function of protection. And yet everytime we turn around we are confronted with sexually elements in movies, TV, news, ads, and on and on...please...get over it I say. Hell, a dick and pussy and azz is nothing new. We all got one or the other!
But you can kiss yo azz good-bye if you happen to get stuck on a plane with an unsecured individual with a bomb or something; or maybe a crazy terrorist...think about that with a pat-down on yo "junk":wink:

 

[HazelGod]

That rationale is beyond stupid.

Your odds of dying in a terrorist attack are so miniscule as to be laughable...roughly the same odds as winning the lottery jackpot. You're 50x more likely to get hit by lightning, and you're nearly 3900x more likely to die in a car crash.

If you're that fucking terrified of being blown up by terrorists, then don't fly.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

No, I'm looking at the whole "new" procedure from soup to nuts, if you'll pardon the pun.

A good pun is always welcome. :wink:

The active scanners present a multi-pronged violation of rights in that they require passengers to expose their bodies to a dose of high-energy ionizing radiation, and in that they effect a virtual strip search of your person.

I've already posted links to an article that explain the two different types of full body scanners that are frequently used, and in both incidents they state the amount of radiation emitted from the machine is less than most cell phones. I'll have to check to see if it was in this thread or in another one about the same topic. Until more accurate information is available that states otherwise, I don't agree that the machines are emitting too much radiation.

The "alternative" custody search (seriously, stop calling it a pat-down) presents a clear violation of your rights as previously discussed.

It can be called virtual rape if you want to. But in the case of John Tyner, nothing happened.

Stepping beyond the legal technicalities, Tyner did nothing to embarrass himself.

We'll have to disagree on that one.

The TSA may have been following their procedure to the letter, but the same could be said of the Nazis sending Jews into the gas chambers. Who gives a flying fuck if procedure was followed if the procedure itself is illegal?

In the case of John Tyner, however, they did nothing illegal.

His video recording captures the intimidation tactics being employed by the TSA to force submission to screening techniques that violate our constitutionally protected rights. It exposes the true behavior of this agency and its callous disregard for law abiding citizens, and it provides documentary evidence that TSA mouthpieces have been lying to the public about the nature and degree of these measures.

If that's intimidation recorded on that video, then I can only wonder what you'd think if you heard the audio of security guards or policemen that manhandle people who are under suspicion of doing wrong. What John Tyner experienced sounds nothing like he was being grabbed by multiple people at once, perhaps thrown against a wall or on the floor, threatened to be locked up in prison if they don't confess or sworn at. He wasn't physically assaulted either. Unfortunately, that happened to me, several times in various forms, just because I had "fit the profile" of someone they suspected of doing wrong. Maybe it's just a difference in how we've both grown up, but that didn't sound like anything close to what I can constitute as intimidation by any stretch of the imagination.

This is a very myopic argument to make, as you're ignoring the TSA's publicly stated intent to roll these procedures out to every airport in the country and apply them to all passengers in the coming months.

Well honestly, I don't see a problem with it. I doubt that I will ever have to worry about getting frisked since I have no issues going through the full body scanners or metal detectors. I'm usually one of the most stress free people going through the scanners. By the time I get to the gate, I usually have my belt, jewelry and all other metal objects packed away in my carry on bag. Small electronics are already off and inside my computer bag. I just take out the computer, scoot off the shoes and I'm through with no beeps. I know being a TSA agent is one of the more thankless and miserable jobs out there, so if I can make their life easier I know my time there will be very short and very painless. And it's worked because very rarely are my bags ever subjected to additional searches and I've never been stopped to be frisked. However, on the rare chance that I have to get "manhandled", I'll just channel the same treatment I received when I go into certain night clubs knowing that if I just follow directions and not cause a scene it won't be bad. On the even slimmer chance that I have to deal with a crooked TSA agent, I follow procedure just to get through the drama and then I can always take it up with management afterwards if I personally feel they get out of line. It's not just about fighting your battles, it's also about when you decide to start swinging. If I was John Tyner and the TSA agents were actually out to break the law, I would have waited for them to at least do something out of protocol. But they didn't even get a chance to because he was already swinging before they could get their gloves out.

Actually, after his ticket was refunded, he was threatened with a civil suit and a $10,000 fine by the TSA for choosing not to go through the screening process to completion...it remains to be seen whether the government follows up on that threat, but I'd say that choosing to leave in the face of such an intimidation tactic is pretty damned courageous.

From what I've read on other articles, the $10,000 fine was not charged and the civil suits are still pending.

 

[deleted15807]

That rationale is beyond stupid.

Your odds of dying in a terrorist attack are so miniscule as to be laughable...roughly the same odds as winning the lottery jackpot. You're 50x more likely to get hit by lightning, and you're nearly 3900x more likely to die in a car crash.

If you're that fucking terrified of being blown up by terrorists, then don't fly.

You know facts don't matter. You're gonna die from sitting on the couch and eating Big Macs. But logic has nothing to do with it and that's the power of terriorism.

 

[Industrialsize]

TSA shows some LOVE

 

[HazelGod]

I've already posted links to an article that explain the two different types of full body scanners that are frequently used, and in both incidents they state the amount of radiation emitted from the machine is less than most cell phones. I'll have to check to see if it was in this thread or in another one about the same topic. Until more accurate information is available that states otherwise, I don't agree that the machines are emitting too much radiation.

Your articles merely quoted the bullshit TSA response to concerns that were voiced. No factual information was presented...they basically said, "We're the government and you should trust us telling you that it's safe." As if.

Here's a look at what actual experts in the field have to say on the matter.

I'm puzzled why your response seems to focus on the Tyner incident alone, while ignoring the broader implications it presents to all of us. I can't honestly say that I understand your apparent attitude that since you're perfectly happy to abdicate your constitutionally protected rights against unwarranted government intrusion, we should ALL be required to do the same as a matter of policy.

That would be like me saying to you that since it would cause me very little personal inconvenience, I'm perfectly fine having police use racial profiling as part of their documented operating procedure, and therefore you should be too.

 

[Speculator]

That would be like me saying to you that since it would cause me very little personal inconvenience, I'm perfectly fine having police use racial profiling as part of their documented operating procedure, and therefore you should be too.

Another poster that clearly doesn't "get it". Anything VB advocates is self-evidently the right thing to do, deviation from his righteous course leads to the victimisation of the vulnerable.

Please report to VB for re-education.

 

[HazelGod]

Anything VB advocates is self-evidently the right thing to do, deviation from his righteous course leads to the victimisation of the vulnerable.

Please report to VB for re-education.

I actually consider VinylBoy to be one of the most sensible and reasoned participants of this forum, and I don't view your characterization of him as being either fair or in any way useful to the discussion at hand.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Your articles merely quoted the bullshit TSA response to concerns that were voiced. No factual information was presented...they basically said, "We're the government and you should trust us telling you that it's safe." As if.

Pardon the phrase, but I know shit's fucked up right now. However I'm not that overtly mistrusting of government. I don't need to tell you how much they directly influence much of the things we take for granted on a daily basis. And I don't walk around assuming that everyone with a badge or a political title is out to take away every right or personal item I own. But that's just me.

On this issue regarding radiation, I personally believe that when people realize just how much of it the average person is subjected to on a daily basis (both natural and man made) I personally think worrying about one machine that you or I will only encounter once (if not a few) times a year is disingenuous. But again, that's just me. If anything, if there really is a health risk the ones who are in the most imminent danger are the TSA agents you're voicing opposition against and the machine operators because they're in and around them on a daily basis.

I'm puzzled why your response seems to focus on the Tyner incident alone, while ignoring the broader implications it presents to all of us. I can't honestly say that I understand your apparent attitude that since you're perfectly happy to abdicate your constitutionally protected rights against unwarranted government intrusion, we should ALL be required to do the same as a matter of policy.

Well to be honest, my main focus was on Tyner because he appeared to be the central focus of the thread starter. But if you want me to look at the full ramifications of his actions and what that means to the rest of us I can give it a shot.

I'm not finding any of the actions conducted by the TSA at this time to be against the Constitution. If we look at the Aviation & Transportation Security Act that was created in November 19, 2001, under the section entitled TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT OF SECURITY SCREENING PERSONNEL, it states that "Screeners who perform pat-downs or handheld metal detector searches of individuals shall have sufficient dexterity and capability to thoroughly conduct those procedures over an individual’s entire body". Because of this, TSA agents do have the right to use certain pat downs and frisking maneuvers if they feel it's necessary regardless if you feel that they're intrusive. The mass majority of people are never subjected to these more aggressive measures because they follow basic procedure and don't provide any actions that can be perceived as a threat. So this whole thing about people being groped or sexually assaulted by TSA officials sounds like nothing but crazy talk to me. However, when people (like John Tyner) cause an obvious spectacle he's going to be viewed by authorities as a trouble maker and will be treated differently than others.

That would be like me saying to you that since it would cause me very little personal inconvenience, I'm perfectly fine having police use racial profiling as part of their documented operating procedure, and therefore you should be too.

The difference here is that some form of unspoken "racial profiling" has always been going on in our society. I know it sucks and I would never want to see it become a form of acceptable law, but I can't stop someone from looking at me and assuming that I'm up to no good based on how I look. With that being said, there are many things I feel to be a personal inconvenience even though I know it's necessary. Thorough security checks at airports are one of them. If I want to take advantage of the privilege to fly, I know there's rules to follow and I go by them with the goal being to make my inconveniences as quick & painless as possible. Personally, I think the one major thing that really stands out between you and I is our perception as to what qualifies as a reasonable search that doesn't go against the Fourth Amendment. That may have something to do with how and where we were raised and could also explain why I have a more forbearing mindset whereas yours is much more stringent.

BTW... thanks for the advocation amidst accusations made by the speculative one. :wink:

 

[HazelGod]

So your premise seems to be that because there's a written policy in place somewhere, the procedures are legal?

If that were the case, why would we need any appellate court system at all?

You do realize that the TSA is an arm of the DHS...an executive agency. As such, they aren't subject to legislative oversight with regard to policy and procedure. It's the president's little army of Gestapo blueshirts. Yes, I'm aware that's hyperbolically oversimplified...but essentially true.

Our disagreement lies in a yet-to-be-decided interpretation...are the policies of the TSA in violation of the 4th Amendment (and other civil protections) or not? Regardless of which way you may personally lean on the matter, it stands to reason that there is plenty evidence to make the case that they are unconstitutional before the courts.

Unfortunately, the appellate process can't be short-circuited to the end. One or more test cases must arise from the public and work their way up to the SCOTUS. It's the American way...which is why I'm having difficulty understanding the vitriol being leveled at Tyner and those who agree with his premise.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

So your premise seems to be that because there's a written policy in place somewhere, the procedures are legal?

There's nothing we can do if it's in the books except propose to change the law. For me personally, I don't see myself being a public nuisance and potentially jeopardizing one of my primary means for global travel and generating income just because I'm afraid someone's hand may get a little too close to my balls while I'm being frisked at a security check. IMO, that wasn't the best way to address the issue because ultimately the TSA didn't break any rules or overstep their boundaries in the handling of his particular case. What good comes out of making a case for an unreasonable search when no search was conducted?

Tyner's actions may bring attention obvious shortcomings within the TSA, which everyone agrees needs to be reformed to some level, but I don't see their option to thoroughly frisk those who openly deny walking through a full body scanner as an attack on a person's civil rights or the Fourth Amendment.

You do realize that the TSA is an arm of the DHS...an executive agency. As such, they aren't subject to legislative oversight with regard to policy and procedure. It's the president's little army of Gestapo blueshirts. Yes, I'm aware that's hyperbolically oversimplified...but essentially true.

I get what you're saying here.

Our disagreement lies in a yet-to-be-decided interpretation...are the policies of the TSA in violation of the 4th Amendment (and other civil protections) or not? Regardless of which way you may personally lean on the matter, it stands to reason that there is plenty evidence to make the case that they are unconstitutional before the courts.

We'll see where all of this goes. I'm not sure if I'm at a point where I would say that their actions breach the 4th Amendment yet. Not based on the little bits of information that's out there. Regardless, there is room to refine and address problems with airport security to make them more efficient. For example, the only thing I do find a grievance with is the aggressive searching of minors. I think it's safe to say that it would be much easier to just let them go through regular metal detectors and if there's any real reason for concern to use the handheld wands as a backup. While I agree that the chances of us being on a plane with a terrorist is close to nil, the chance that the terrorist would use a child is even "niller". Yeah, I made that word up. Why did FuseTV have to play a Nelly tune while I was typing this? :biggrin1:

Unfortunately, the appellate process can't be short-circuited to the end. One or more test cases must arise from the public and work their way up to the SCOTUS. It's the American way...which is why I'm having difficulty understanding the vitriol being leveled at Tyner and those who agree with his premise.

If I come off as being too scathing towards Tyner then I apologize. It's not due to what he did at the airport. His actions have everyone talking about an issue that does need to be addressed in our country and that's a good thing. I just think his comparison to Rosa Parks, as mentioned by New End in EXTREMELY LARGE TYPE against a background of false accusations of only being able to look at issues through the lens of race, was and still is outlandish.