Patterico's Pontifications

9/7/2011

And You Thought This Country Was Too Litigious

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:26 am



TSA agent puts part of her hand in passenger’s vagina. Passenger writes about incident and calls it rape.

TSA agent threatens half-million dollar lawsuit.

95 Responses to “And You Thought This Country Was Too Litigious”

  1. I would be interested, in this thread, if our lawyerly commenters would give their opinions.

    The chattering class of trolls of late, not so much.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  2. So this agent is going to argue that her action was technically only sexual assault and not really rape rape? I suspect the TSA will not come out of this looking good. I thank Amy for bringing light on this.

    Machinist (b6f7da)

  3. I guess this should not be surprising in a political climate where police feel they can arrest people who record them doing their taxpayer paid duties and politicians claim it is unfair to expect them to exercise self control or be honest.

    Machinist (b6f7da)

  4. I do hope this agent ends up paying legal fees to her victim.

    Machinist (b6f7da)

  5. Amy Alkon’s lawyer’s response to the TSA suit is priceless.

    In your July 12 letter to Ms. Alkon, you claim that her statements constitute defamation
    per se
    under California law. You are mistaken. A statement must be both false and unprivileged to be defamatory. Ms. Alkon’s were neither. First of all, Ms. Magee
    did
    rape my client. Your client aggressively pushed her fingers into my client’s vulva. I am certain that she did not expect to find a bomb there. She did this to humiliate my client, to punish her for exercising her rights, and to send a message to others who might do the same. It was absolutely a sexual assault, perpetrated in order to exercise power over the victim. We agree with Ms. Alkon’s characterization of this crime as “rape,” and so would any reasonable juror….

    Your client also seems to have been persuaded that Ms. Alkon’s statements constitute “intentional infliction of emotional distress” (“IIED”). Any emotional harm suffered by Magee is a self-inflicted wound, and likely a broader consequence of working for the TSA. A TSA agent threatening to sue a citizen for IIED is one of the most ironic events I can imagine. Perhaps if you are looking for similarly situated clients, you could find surviving members of the Montgomery, Alabama police department to sue civil rights marchers for the stress that they forced them to endure when they got all uppity and made the police attack them with fire hoses.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  6. This is the kind of story upon which the 75% of polled people who say our country is going in the wrong direction base those beliefs.

    elissa (d992ac)

  7. And who, exactly, is surprised by this action of the TSA (initially), and the reaction of the agent to being outed as a border-line sexual offender?
    There were countless objections to this “frisk” proceedure when it was announced, and the complaints of how it is practiced are legend, yet Congress and the Administration do nothing.
    How long before we just all line up in our birthday-suits and submit to body-cavity searches so that we can go visit “grandma” over the holidays?
    What will be next: Bar codes on our fore-arms?

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (64cedc)

  8. Unless the vaginal penetration didn’t happen at all, Alkon did not defame. Case closed.

    TSA is going to be enjoying the publicity.

    sarahW (fd5a41)

  9. Personally, I think the complainant (the one who complained that she was “raped”) is a bit of a nutjob. She was determined to make a scene before she was even touched by the TSA agent.

    Kman (5576bf)

  10. Agents were INSTRUCTED to make examples of passengers… to make noise and fuss and to search aggressively.

    The Agent thought she had the right. It’s our duty to teach them otherwise.

    sarahW (fd5a41)

  11. Very troubling, but I wouldn’t jump to conclusions based on these particulars. All we have is an accusation and a threat. No charges filed either way, no testimony under oath, no witnesses.

    Amphipolis (b120ce)

  12. they say rape is about power more than sex

    but the TSA should stop raping people it’s wrong no matter why they’re doing it

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  13. Patterico, you’re the LA County Deputy District Attorney here. Hasn’t the DA’s office –on occasion–added “digital penetration” as an additional count on a charge of rape? What does the California Penal Code say?

    Because “digital penetration” is what’s going on here. Now between consenting adults–or horny teenagers–that’s simply foreplay.

    As for the TSA agent’s claim that she was “just doing her job” and shouldn’t be yelled at. Do you suppose the guards at Treblinka who led folks to the “showers” felt that they shouldn’t be yelled at? Just following orders is not necessarily a defense.

    Janet Napolitano and her troop of low level bureacratic functionaries remind me of the graffito frequently seen at Army training bases during the Viet Nam war (ask me how I know that, having “matriculated” at Ft. Polk LA in 1969).

    The full graffito goes: “We are the unwilling, led by the incompetent to do the unnecessary for the ungrateful”.

    For the TSA that might be written: “We are the way underqualified, led by the woefully incompetent, to perform unnecessary searches on the oppressed populace–who are profoundly ungrateful.”

    Comanche Voter (0e06a9)

  14. Kman continues to show his utter incompetence and lack of credibility.

    Amy and Marc are going to own this clown and her incompetent attorney.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  15. I’ve never thought the airlines have been active and vocal enough with respect to the TSA rules even before the over the top pat downs and photo booths started under Janet N’s reign. I wonder what the loss to the airlines in passenger traffic has been and will continue to be until some semblance of sanity is restored to air travel.

    elissa (d992ac)

  16. Kmart approves of rape.

    JD (1e48bc)

  17. kmart secretly desires to be a TSA black-shirt.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (64cedc)

  18. Well, yes, I suppose it is possible that this particular TSA agent decided to “finger penetrate” this Amy Alkon (and only Amy Alkon it seems), who just (coincidentally) happened to have an obvious beef with the TSA and who was making a visible spectacle of herself even before there was any patdown.

    But it strikes me as much more likely that hyperbolic attention-seeking Amy Alkon either made it up or imagined it. I mean, she all but admits that she intended to “take a stand” BEFORE she was even touched!!

    Kman (5576bf)

  19. American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) won TSA union election in June. Does anyone know if this is a union attorney representing the TSA agent or if union money is paying for the filing? Or is this likely a private suit?

    “AFGE attorneys, national organizers, and national representatives have represented TSA screening personnel since its inception through the TSA’s internal (and non-neutral) grievance procedure, the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, the EEOC, the TSA’s Discipline Review Board (DRB), and the courts. AFGE has directly represented TSOs in hundreds of cases.” (from AFGE website)

    elissa (d992ac)

  20. TSA is messing with the wrong woman here. As anyone who has read Amy Alkon’s blog can attest, she doesn’t shrink from a righteous fight, and she gives way better than she gets. Godspeed, Amy–go show the world what the TSA is really all about.

    Kevin Stafford (abdb87)

  21. elissa, there is no reason for the union to be involved, as the TSA employee herself is not sued or charged.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  22. Posts like the following (linked by KMan from this woman’s blog) are why I remain skeptical that agents are really doing this stuff:

    Please, everybody, ask for the name of the person who violated you, and when you post about it, use their name. It’s got to become very uncomfortable to be one of those who earns a living, as said at Nuremberg, by “just following orders.”

    Oh, and just in case you’re one of those who has gotten used to giving up your rights with ease, ANY touching by a government official without probable cause counts as being violated.

    Yes, just like the Nazis at Nuremburg… :rolleyes:

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  23. SPQR–what about if Amy countersues, now? I’m trying to figure out what the end game is here.

    elissa (d992ac)

  24. Personally, I think the complainant (the one who complained that she was “raped”) is a bit of a nutjob. She was determined to make a scene before she was even touched by the TSA agent.

    Comment by Kman — 9/7/2011 @ 8:44 am

    You’re trolling, K.

    A woman has a right to not being touched there if she doesn’t consent. When someone has ‘an attitude’, that doesn’t mean she’s a nutjob, especially when she knows that there’s a great chance of being touched inappropriately as a penalty for traveling.

    She is well known, and outspoken, and I’m sure at least that latter played a role here. The agent didn’t like the uppity woman, so she sexually assaulted her to bring her under submission. It’s a tactic that is as old as any.

    It’s got to become very uncomfortable to be one of those who earns a living, as said at Nuremberg, by “just following orders.”

    Carlitos, this is actually 100% fair. Nowhere did Alkon say molestation is as bad as murder, but the same principle applies. TSA agents make a living off violating our 4th amendment rights. The worst should be identified by name and publicly known for what they are doing.

    Yes, Alkon probably entered that airport with an attitude particularly hostile towards gropers, but I can hardly blame her. Did that lead to a much worse attack? Probably.

    Is there reason to think she’s dishonest? Nope. I don’t know why you do. Have you been to an airport recently? Her report is 100% believable to me.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  25. I agree that prudence dictates no final conclusions until all parties have undergone cross-examination under oath. Is it possible for someone to provoke a scene and make a false accusation? Yes. Is it possible someone really did this? Yes. I guess which story one is likely to believe has to do with one’s presuppositions.

    Is it possible it happened as Amy Alkon says, and the litigation is a “The best defense is a good offense” ploy? Yes, as this has seemed to work in many instances (in fact, one could say the entire Democrat play book is based on accusing others first to distract attention).

    I think such a type of search is totally unwarranted, and if it really occurs is a consequence of doing the stupid to avoid the obvious because the obvious is not “PC”. I would think such violation of one’s body is unreasonable search without a warrant. If they really wanted to do this kind of evaluation without a warrant when necessary, I think they should train some agents in the use of a portable ultrasound machine that could give evidence of objects not consistent with body tissue density.

    I’m totally going from general knowledge here and haven’t studied the issue. Maybe I’m wrong and have watched too many “24” episodes, but it seems to me that if a professional wanted to conceal a deadly weapon bad enough, different types of plastics and ceramics could be used and concealed easily, and the likelihood of finding them through a random enhanced search would be virtually zero.

    There are many fine people working hard to do a good job to protect the country, at times in spite of foolish policy decisions, but at the end of the day I think a lot boils down to the fact that people who are professionals at such things don’t like the idea of suicide missions, and those who are into suicide missions are not able to perfect their abilities before acting. The 9/11 hijackers certainly did a lot of preparation, but a lot of their success was the element of surprise, which was taken away by the time Flight 93 was headed to its target.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  26. Dustin, I don’t believe that the 4th Amendment applies when you consent to a search. Which you do by purchasing a plane ticket, knowing that a search precedes your entry into the terminal.

    Seriously, though. The kind of drama queen that starts sobbing out loud in an airport because she’s getting patted down is not the kind of person I’m likely to find a credible witness. YMMV

    And I am no fan of the TSA airport program (I think it’s fighting the last war instead of the next), but I fly 70 – 80,000 miles per year and I have never seen any of this unreasonable, invasive stuff I hear about in the horror stories. The ones I deal with seem like they are almost too polite, probably to avoid even the chance of a complaint.

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  27. She is well known, and outspoken, and I’m sure at least that latter played a role here.

    Really? You think the TSA agents saw her and thought, “Oh, it’s her??? Let’s get her.” Please.

    The agent didn’t like the uppity woman, so she sexually assaulted her to bring her under submission. It’s a tactic that is as old as any.

    Hahahahahaha! Riiiiight. Because I deal with uppity people all the time in the course of my job, and that’s what I do… sexually assault them. That’s how all my friends deal with uppity people, too. And this woman was probably the ONLY uppity person the TSA agent had ever dealt with, which is why it never happened before.

    Again, none of us here know the truth, but my money is on the TSA agent. I doubt anyone in her position would risk her job in order to (unsuccessfully) stifle an “uppity person” by committing sexual assault — in a public place full of security cameras. Really really dumb.

    It’s just too much of a coincidence that our dear Amy, a crusader against the TSA and who practically wanted to pick a fight that day, just happened to be “sexually assaulted” by the TSA. It’s like, most people who claim to have been abducted by UFOs were those obsessed with UFOs in the first place. You just gotta nod your head and say “Riiiiiiight”.

    Kman (5576bf)

  28. Dustin, I don’t believe that the 4th Amendment applies when you consent to a search. Which you do by purchasing a plane ticket, knowing that a search precedes your entry into the terminal.

    There’s a degree of reasonableness that is often broken here. A degree of common sense that is not in effect.

    What kind of consent is this, by the way? I NEED to fly to see my family, or make that meeting. I either stick my head in a microwave oven, or I let some incredibly creepy person fondle me.

    At what point did I consent? I guess when I voted for Obama or Bush at some point would be the most accurate point.

    I didn’t consent to this. Not really. I was coerced.

    And I am no fan of the TSA airport program (I think it’s fighting the last war instead of the next), but I fly 70 – 80,000 miles per year and I have never seen any of this unreasonable, invasive stuff I hear about in the horror stories.

    I find this amazing. It’s true they pull people aside from public view, but you’ve never noticed this behavior is happening around you?

    The ones I deal with seem like they are almost too polite,

    What in the world does this even mean? You think they should be ruder?

    The kind of drama queen that starts sobbing out loud in an airport because she’s getting patted down

    BECAUSE SHE WAS PENETRATED REPEATEDLY.

    Do you really think she consented to that when she consented to a pat-down? That’s insane. She has a right to her government not entering her that way without a damn good and specific reason. ‘We need to search everyone’ is not good enough for me.

    Her behavior makes complete sense if you assume she’s telling the truth, and I’ve seen zero evidence she is not. You just assume people who cry when finger-raped are not credible.

    I know you’re reasonable generally, so consider the way the TSA is acting. The union is suing Ms Alkon merely for free speech. There is no doubt that that person put his hands on someone who really just wanted the freedom to travel (thus coerced into a search instead of true consent).

    They are suing her and demanding Alkon pay half a million dollars.

    You said you find sobbing and drama to harm credibility, so apply that principle to the crying and dramatic lawsuit to shut Alkon up. She is entitled to her freedom of speech, and to criticize her government for fondling her. You can dismiss that as consent-lite if you wish, but you should still be informed about it.

    Apparently you didn’t know the TSA is often aggressively searching people, especially attractive women.

    I can assure you that if someone flying has any attitude at all, they are at risk of a more invasive search. This is the most sensible explanation for Alkon’s story. I think you are out of line to suggest she made it up.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  29. 27.Dustin, I don’t believe that the 4th Amendment applies when you consent to a search. Which you do by purchasing a plane ticket, knowing that a search precedes your entry into the terminal

    That’s an interesting point, Carlitos. It makes sense, but it seems uncalled for to make implicit consent to an invasive search a requirement for plane travel. But then again, that’s the whole controversy over TSA policy.

    Then again, planned chaos is effective in distracting attention; while everyone is making a fuss over details of TSA searches no one has the time to focus on the effects of refusing to profile in risk assessment.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  30. I admit I am unsure of the law on this, but I am confident how any jury would want to find if they had any reasonable excuse.

    jim2 (6482d8)

  31. I think this lawsuit is ridiculous, and it undermines any credibility on the TSA’s part.

    I guess this is similar logic to Carlitos’s, but I think demanding Alkon not describe what happened, and pay $500,000 for doing so, is far less reasonable than a woman crying after a TSA patdown. Especially if one was as Alkon described, which I simply find 100% credible.

    Did the TSA deny the penetration? It seems we have two defenses employed. One is that Alkon consented to being penetrated, and another that she’s lying about being penetrated. They can’t both be right.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  32. To clarify, I’m not saying she made it up, I’m just trying to be mindful that people can do unexpected things for all kinds of reasons. I would eagerly subscribe to a news source that printed nothing but information that had been obtained under oath and cross-examined. And even then, if it’s a Henry Waxmen hearing it’s still not good enough.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  33. So the TSA agent’s defense is ‘She was asking for it’ by buying a ticket?

    Weak.

    Pious Agnostic (7c3d5b)

  34. I guess I’m opening a can of worms, but is it acceptable to have homosexuals patting down members of the same sex?

    I think in today’s climate, many would say that it’s wrong to even think about it. But I would expect it leads to a lot of problems. How do you ask, though? I don’t want that kind of invasion into employees.

    A better solution is to terminate all pat downs unless there is a specific suspicion. Employ questions and profiling of all varieties (racial certainly not being the primary kind here).

    I don’t think these pat downs are helping us very much.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  35. The TSA agent has apparently never hear of the Streisand Effect. I expect that will change.

    LarryD (feb78b)

  36. Dustin:

    Did the TSA deny the penetration? It seems we have two defenses employed. One is that Alkon consented to being penetrated, and another that she’s lying about being penetrated. They can’t both be right.

    Actually, they can, but I only see the latter defense being employed. The TSA agent (through the lawyer) denied it. If you read the letter, it says nothing about “consent to penetration”; rather, it says that the allegations of rape, penetration, etc. are false.

    BECAUSE SHE WAS PENETRATED REPEATEDLY.

    Dustin, if you read Alkin’s own account, she started crying BEFORE the alleged penetration took place. By her own account.

    Basically, I felt it important to make a spectacle of what they are doing to us, to make it uncomfortable for them to violate us and our rights, so I let the tears come. In fact, I sobbed my guts out. Loudly. Very loudly. The entire time the woman was searching me.

    Kman (5576bf)

  37. Nobody ever gropes me.

    JD (e143f5)

  38. Quotes below are all from Comment by Dustin — 9/7/2011 @ 10:20 am

    There’s a degree of reasonableness that is often broken here. A degree of common sense that is not in effect.

    What kind of consent is this, by the way? I NEED to fly to see my family, or make that meeting. I either stick my head in a microwave oven, or I let some incredibly creepy person fondle me.

    I think that Amendment protections have been defined pretty specifically by lots of case law. I know how you feel, but there is no Constitutional right to take a commercial flight.

    At what point did I consent? I guess when I voted for Obama or Bush at some point would be the most accurate point.

    I guess so.

    I didn’t consent to this. Not really. I was coerced.

    OK, but your Fourth Amendment rights are not being violated.

    I find this amazing. It’s true they pull people aside from public view, but you’ve never noticed this behavior is happening around you?

    It’s not that I haven’t noticed, it’s that it’s not happening. I’m a pretty observant guy, especially at airports, and especially considering these TSA horror stories. No one is grabbing my junk, or the junk of the people with me in line. It has never happened. I have been patted down numerous times. Again, I’m a sample size of 1, but I do fly a lot.

    What in the world does this even mean? You think they should be ruder?

    Well, the ones in NY behave like I’d expect the rest of them to behave – just matter of fact, direct. The ones at O’Hare are all smiley and friendly, in an almost artificial way. That’s all I meant.

    The kind of drama queen that starts sobbing out loud in an airport because she’s getting patted down

    BECAUSE SHE WAS PENETRATED REPEATEDLY.

    So you still haven’t read the link.

    Drama Queen decides to sob loudly before anyone touches her:
    On March 31st, when I came through the metal detector and realized that everyone in the TSA line to my United flight was getting searched, I got teary. I was teary at the prospect of being touched by a government worker — entirely without probable cause. I was very upset, both because of the physical violation and because I love our now too-often-crumpled-up Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    I can hold back the tears…hang tough…but as I was made to “assume the position” on a rubber mat like a common criminal, I thought fast. I decided that these TSA lackeys who serve the government in violating our rights just don’t deserve my quiet compliance. And no, I won’t go through the scanner (do you trust the government that they’re safe?) and allow a government employee to see me naked in the course of normal and totally ordinary business travel: flying from Los Angeles to Binghamton, New York, to attend an evolutionary psychology conference for my work.

    Basically, I felt it important to make a spectacle of what they are doing to us, to make it uncomfortable for them to violate us and our rights, so I let the tears come. In fact, I sobbed my guts out. Loudly. Very

    Do you really think she consented to that when she consented to a pat-down? That’s insane. She has a right to her government not entering her that way without a damn good and specific reason. ‘We need to search everyone’ is not good enough for me.

    I have said that I remain skeptical of her claims. I have not said that she “consented” to having fingers in her vulva, obviously.

    Her behavior makes complete sense if you assume she’s telling the truth, and I’ve seen zero evidence she is not. You just assume people who cry when finger-raped are not credible.

    You misunderstand the burden of proof. In my opinion, her claim of being “penetrated” is a bit extraordinary, given my personal experience with 1 – the TSA and 2 – bitchy drama queens with persecution complexes. Again YMMV.

    I know you’re reasonable generally, so consider the way the TSA is acting. The union is suing Ms Alkon merely for free speech. There is no doubt that that person put his hands on someone who really just wanted the freedom to travel (thus coerced into a search instead of true consent).

    Again, I’m not a fan. The TSA is behaving like I would expect any company or bureaucracy to behave if they can get away with it.

    Apparently you didn’t know the TSA is often aggressively searching people, especially attractive women.

    Mass Hysteria, people with touching phobias, confirmation bias, a few bad apples, and probably a few more reasons come to mind.

    I can assure you that if someone flying has any attitude at all, they are at risk of a more invasive search. This is the most sensible explanation for Alkon’s story. I think you are out of line to suggest she made it up.

    Well, respectfully, since you have no evidence to back your assertion, I’ll just go with my reasoning. “Having an attitude” is not one of the criteria for the search. Even the drama queen noted that everyone on her flight was being searched. They probably had a reason for that.

    Gotta go, so I may not reply further. (and no I’m not headed to Jakarta)

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  39. ==…you consent to a search. Which you do by purchasing a plane ticket==

    Oh, Carlitos–
    Consent? To that? Your ability to relate to Amy or to any woman who might find herself in this type of situation must be hindered by the fact that you (as far as I can tell from your handle) are a man. Amy is alleging that another human–a complete stranger–using fingers, forced her way up inside of Amy’s body. Inside it.

    An intimate act performed by consenting adults can be a very beautiful thing indeed, because it does take place inside a woman’s body. When such an intimate act is performed brutally, or clumsily, and without consent, something very different is happening inside a woman’s body and also inside her head.

    Every TSA agent has the option to treat people over whom they have “power” humanely and with respect– or to treat them with pettiness and malace.

    The fact that you’ve never seen it, or experienced it yourself is not terribly persuasive. The fact that you’ve already christened Amy as a “drama queen” further lessens your argument.

    MDPhilly–Thank you for your thoughtful and sane comments, as always.

    elissa (d992ac)

  40. (and no I’m not headed to Jakarta)

    Comment by carlitos — 9/7/2011 @ 10:41 am

    hahahaha

    Have a good day, man. Consider Elissa’s POV on this. I think she’s completely right. Of course Amy would be very upset. Her being upset doesn’t undermine her credibility… it just makes sense.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  41. Comment by carlitos — 9/7/2011 @ 10:41 am

    So if the government decides that by getting a driver’s license you are consenting to searches at random, completely at the whim of any law enforcement without any probable cause, you’d be ok with that, right?

    I mean, there’s no Constitutional Right to have a driver’s license, right?

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  42. Really quickly, in light of elissa’s post (thanks Dustin) : Have you guys read the woman’s blog page yet?

    THIS WOMAN DECIDED TO SOB “LOUDLY” AND CONTINUOUSLY BEFORE SHE WAS SEARCHED. It was not a “reaction” to penetration, whether it happened or not. I’m questioning her state of mind. Whether I am a man or not, I’m questioning her state of mind in making a decision to make a situation (pat-down of everybody) worse by sobbing loudly like a freaking drama queen.

    I again acknowledge that I’m a sample size of one, and that my experience is not evidence one way or the other.

    I will come back and read responses later.

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  43. Body of case law =/= “the government decides” Scott. (IANAL)

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  44. Also, would the fact that the Agent sued be readable as her waiving immunity, making it possible for Amy to sue HER civilly?

    And you can be sure that Marc Randazza will make full use of California’s anti-SLAAP laws to bleed that bitch for every possible dime.

    I look forward to Mr Randazza burning both the TSA drone and her idiot lawyer at the stake.

    Metaphorically.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  45. THIS WOMAN DECIDED TO SOB “LOUDLY” AND CONTINUOUSLY BEFORE SHE WAS SEARCHED. It was not a “reaction” to penetration, whether it happened or not. I’m questioning her state of mind. Whether I am a man or not, I’m questioning her state of mind in making a decision to make a situation (pat-down of everybody) worse by sobbing loudly like a freaking drama queen.

    I don’t give a damn if it was hysterics or over-wrought drama.

    The TSA agent stuffed her hand up at Amy’s hoody-hoo four times with enough force to part the lips.

    What the f*ck do you call that, besides sexual assault?

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  46. One really has to consider, what is the end result
    of these policies, I don’t see an acheivable objective:

    Meanwhile,legal insanity proceeds apace:

    http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=30432#comment-1125577

    ian cormac (4e0dda)

  47. Body of case law =/= “the government decides” Scott. (IANAL)

    Comment by carlitos — 9/7/2011 @ 10:55 am

    Again, “so?”.

    Absent any probable cause, agents of the government are searching people in an invasive and completely ineffectual manner.

    I might give the TSA some space if they were actually acomplishing anything, but they aren’t even succeeding at what they are supposed to be doing. They have yet to stop anyone trying to bring down a plane, and they constantly fail tests.

    As Marc says in his response, anyone with brains and intent could get something past these idiots.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  48. Ian, we don’t link to those f*ckwits here.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  49. The sad thing is that the government set this situation up on purpose.

    Let’s say Alkon is being truthful and she was assaulted in this manner. She has no way of proving it, and the agent’s defense will be hard to ignore. Thus making it possible for people to be assaulted at the airport without any ability to defend themselves, even by talking about it.

    On the other hand, if the agent really was behaving according to her job description and Alkon made a false claim because of some misguided idea that she’s helping her libertarian cause, than this woman (the TSA agent) has had her name smeared across the internet as a rapist. I can’t say that sits well with me either. I don’t like the way our fourth amendment rights are being trampled at the airport, but I will never condone unjustly crying rape. (again, hypothetically speaking)

    Book (c7b6c5)

  50. Kpax wants to be fingered by a TSA agent.

    Icy Texan (63dd9e)

  51. Book wants the filing of charges to be done . . . in . . . secret?

    Icy Texan (63dd9e)

  52. Carlitos–here’s what I think you may be missing that most everybody else here seems to “get”. Yes, agreed, Amy was crying and probably making a scene. And then, the TSA agent got really pissed about it and decided to make it even worse by literally sticking it to Amy. You know–show her who’s boss–by making an example of Amy. But hey, what’s a little abuse of power when you work for, and are protected by the government, right?

    elissa (d992ac)

  53. You don’t link to Cato, on the wit and wisdom of new CEA Chair

    ian cormac (4e0dda)

  54. Comment by Icy Texan — 9/7/2011 @ 11:10 am

    Don’t be obtuse. I never made any such suggestion. I’m speaking solely to the way the TSA has created this situation.

    Book (c7b6c5)

  55. Book, I do think people who run their hands on the bodies of strangers, who were coerced merely because they didn’t want to go through the microwave thing, do deserve to be publicly named. Even merely conducting a ‘good’ search to TSA standards justifies an accurate shaming.

    They put their hands on grandma and 5 year old boys and it pisses me off. they do it for money, knowing those people did nothing wrong. They just needed to take an airplane somewhere.

    Sure, the government said it was OK. So what? We all know it’s not OK. Everyone in this thread knows it’s not OK. The reason they pull these people aside is because they know a lot of men would rush to defend the victims if they could see them. The privacy justification is ridiculous, if you think about it. They know what they are doing would incite a riot if you could see it happening.

    The 100% pat down or microwave system needs to be replaced with profiling. And yes, the acceptance of a greater degree of risk might also be necessary.

    But if that’s not going to happen, at least provide all molestees with a video of the search. The cost would be negligible. Let the TSA withstand true public knowledge of what they are doing.

    Let people know that this is what it means to vote for Barack Obama, and give other candidates a chance to either agree or disagree with this policy.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  56. THIS WOMAN DECIDED TO SOB “LOUDLY” AND CONTINUOUSLY BEFORE SHE WAS SEARCHED.

    So evidence of an anxiety attack is probable cause for TSA to initiate the harshest measures that they can employ?

    Please go to Djakarta, and stay there.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (64cedc)

  57. . And then, the TSA agent got really pissed about it and decided to make it even worse

    Elissa, I agree this is a reasonable explanation. I’ve seen this kind of power trip a million times, though thankfully never sexual. Every now and then you run into someone in the government who thinks you are acting superior, and they will decide to treat you a shabbily because they think they can get away with it.

    Interestingly, such people also love to sue.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  58. Comment by Dustin — 9/7/2011 @ 11:17 am

    I completely agree with you- for the most part. I don’t think people should be publicly named and shamed. I think the law needs to be changed so that groping is no longer a part of the TSA job description. 🙂

    Book (c7b6c5)

  59. I think the law needs to be changed so that groping is no longer a part of the TSA job description.

    OK, I admit that would be a much better outcome than just shaming the jerks repeatedly.

    🙂

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  60. The TSA should be replaced by an organization under the auspices of the insurance compainies who hold the property/casualty/liability policies for the airlines.
    Let those who have skin in the game ensure the safety of flying, and who have to answer to their policy holders (the airlines) when it comes to annoying, or antagonizing those who ultimately pay the bills; the flying public!

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (64cedc)

  61. And then, the TSA agent got really pissed about it and decided to make it even worse by literally sticking it to Amy. You know–show her who’s boss–by making an example of Amy.

    That’s a pretty far-fetched theory, IMHO. Why would the TSA agent give an obvious troublemaker the ammunition to cause REAL trouble? Why would a TSA agent decide “to make it worse”?

    And even if the TSA agent really wanted to get Amy’s goat, there were better ways to do it. Like sitting her off to the side for ten, twenty, thirty minutes.

    But to grope inside her vajayjay? Isn’t that a little preposterous, not to mention unnecessarily risky? And by the way, what makes people think that TSA agents want to penetrate other people’s genitals? They’re people just like you and me.

    It’s one thing to be mad at the security system we have in place, but TSA agents don’t establish the rules.

    So evidence of an anxiety attack is probable cause for TSA to initiate the harshest measures that they can employ?

    People don’t “decide” to have an anxiety attack, so obviously Ms. Alkin didn’t have one.

    Kman (5576bf)

  62. Just to let you know Carlitos is a TSA shill just call him out when he goes one of his hypocritical rants.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  63. To the troll who said that anxiety attacks are justification for a TSA agent to grope a womans vagina as if she were a lesbian please move to Argentina and stay there.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  64. “Any penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the act.”

    mojo (8096f2)

  65. I love it when people on daily troll assignment from the dark side are obligated to defend/argue something really stupid–like the universally hated TSA. If we had a thread about union nurse assistants “putting people to sleep permanently for their own good” in nursing homes, there’d be a troll here trying to defend it. If we had a thread about Michelle Obama taking another $400,000 trip overseas on the taxpayers’ dime, there’d be some troll here to argue that the president’s wife neeeeds and deserves cool vacations. It all just gets so very old.

    elissa (d992ac)

  66. Why would the TSA agent give an obvious troublemaker the ammunition to cause REAL trouble?

    Because, as agents of the Federal Government, they believe they enjoy Sovereign Immunity.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (64cedc)

  67. That’s a pretty far-fetched theory, IMHO.

    Ha!

    I think that’s hilarious. You’ve never been to the post office on a monday? Never heard of Sherrod? A lot of dopey assholes work for the government, and if they perceive you are being uppity, they treat you like dirt.

    Nothing far fetched about it.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  68. I’d like to see the actual complaint of the Agent.

    Unless the Agent denies touching Ms. Alkon in the location alleged, there is no defamation.

    Calling it “rape” but describing exactly what happened, is completely protected speech.

    sarahW (fd5a41)

  69. And by protected, I mean not subject to any civil tort claim.

    sarahW (fd5a41)

  70. Carlitos, you wrote “Having an attitude” is not one of the criteria for the search.

    In point of fact “having an attitude” about being patted down or imaged, is a *documented* TSA criterion for singling out a passenger.

    And assuming all the passengers were to be patted down, there is no reason to believe that her “attitude” did not contribute to an especially aggressive search.

    sarahW (fd5a41)

  71. The TSA agent stuffed her hand up at Amy’s hoody-hoo four times with enough force to part the lips.

    What the f*ck do you call that, besides sexual assault?

    Comment by Scott Jacobs — 9/7/2011 @ 10:58 am

    Yes. If it happened.

    Right now I have the word of an admittedly attention-seeking woman with a prior vendetta against the TSA. A woman whose state of mind at the time was “it’s a good idea for a grown woman to sob LOUDLY before she receives a TSA pat-down search.” So, as I said a few times earlier, I remain skeptical about her extraordinary claim that “The TSA officer, probably with 20 people watching (because of the LOUD crying) “punished” this woman by essentially raping her in full public view. That’s what Dustin describes as a “reasonable explanation.” I again, remain skeptical that this happened in the way the woman describes.

    Just a few weeks ago, I watched a woman that was VERY uncomfortable and apprehensive before the pat down. The TSA kept politely telling her that she could go over to the machine (that new xray thingie), or she could go in a private room, or she could even leave. The woman apparently had a fear of radiation and was afraid to go into the room, but had to fly. So they did the pat-down. She did not look happy. I stopped what I was doing and watched (as did other people) because she was holding the line up and making a scene. If the TSA would have been freaking penetrating her while we watched, I (or someone faster on the draw) would have either filmed it or offered our name as a witness and helped her file a complaint. (and yes I would have sent the film to Patterico for an exclusive)

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  72. SarahW – can you point me to the TSA *documentation* about “having an attitude” as a criteria for search. Thanks.

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  73. it’s a good idea for a grown woman to sob LOUDLY

    Pretty sure that was an emotional response rather than her theorem on behavior.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  74. Sandra Day O’Conner wrote an opinion that is IMHO the last word on the constitutionality of a search, and the TSAs current methods would have failed her test.

    The search is unreasonable because it is very invasive, and a general screen of ususpected persons and unlikely to have the desired practical effect.

    sarahW (fd5a41)

  75. It didn’t happen because Carlitos says so.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  76. Hi sarahW,

    I was being serious in asking whether you could show me the documentation that “having an attitude” was a criteria for singling out a passenger for search.

    Pretty sure that was an emotional response rather than her theorem on behavior.

    Comment by Dustin — 9/7/2011 @ 2:12 pm

    And you’re still wrong. Why can’t you read these words and see intent?

    I thought fast. I decided that these TSA lackeys who serve the government in violating our rights just don’t deserve my quiet compliance. And no, I won’t go through the scanner (do you trust the government that they’re safe?) and allow a government employee to see me naked in the course of normal and totally ordinary business travel: flying from Los Angeles to Binghamton, New York, to attend an evolutionary psychology conference for my work.

    Basically, I felt it important to make a spectacle of what they are doing to us, to make it uncomfortable for them to violate us and our rights, so I let the tears come. In fact, I sobbed my guts out. Loudly. Very loudly. The entire time the woman was searching me.

    Thinking and deciding are not emotional reactions to stressors. The irrational fear of being seen “naked” and that the machine is “safe” – that sounds more emotional to me.

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  77. Sarah, because a terrorist would obviously go out of their way to complain about the TSA publicly, let alone cry while being molested.

    This is ridiculous theater that has no relationship to security.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  78. And you’re still wrong. Why can’t you read these words and see intent?

    OK, you’ve got me on that. She did decide to make the TSA uncomfortable with her reactions. And frankly, it’s a good plan.

    But it was still emotion.

    Thinking and deciding are not emotional reactions to stressors.

    Maybe there’s a little of both. I think someone sobbing ‘You raped me’ is pretty damn emotional, even if they knew in advance this was going to happen.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  79. Thanks for the link. While I do want the TSA to learn more behavioral profiling (like the Israelis and some Europeans do), I do agree with Dustin that “complaining loudly about security” doesn’t seem like a security risk. It is an indicator that I don’t want to sit next to you on a plane, because you’re probably a rude lout, but that’s not a security risk in my eyes.

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  80. And obviously, I totally agree with emotionally sobbing “you raped me” is a reasonable response if this happened. As is a lawsuit, as is a blog post about it. I’m just going to need a little more evidence that it happened.

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  81. carlitos, don’t trip over your feet walking backwards.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (64cedc)

  82. Also, Carlitos, there’s no reason to trust the government that tells you the scanners are safe, is there?

    They are molesting people, even those who note they are the victims of sexual assault, so they obviously aren’t terribly concerned with safety to passengers. They have no credibility to establish what is and isn’t safe.

    I’m not saying the scanners are unsafe, though I greatly suspect it varies wildly. I’m sure with more radiation the image is clearer, so some TSA slobs crank it up when they feel like it.

    You call it irrational to be seen naked. So you won’t mind uploading an image of your naked body to this thread, would you?

    I’m not serious.

    Of course psychologically normal people get emotional when their genitals are grabbed, or they are seen naked by strangers against their will.

    I don’t understand where you’re coming from with this. Alkon’s attitude is pretty damn normal. Who doesn’t feel the urge to resist these assholes sometimes? Who doesn’t get upset when they are forced to undergo a search, but they did nothing wrong?

    Why do you think Alkon’s negativity about bad things suggests she could be a liar?

    Isn’t that basically what you’re saying? You don’t believe her accusation she was sexually assaulted because she had a bad attitude and is a silly emotional woman? I apologize if I’m misreading you… that’s an ugly charge I’m making.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  83. cross posted a bit.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  84. Sometimes people are too confrontational with carlitos. He is a big boy, but usually has a valid reason for his position, unlike others who are simply contrarians.

    JD (318f81)

  85. I think of it as character-building.

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  86. I don’t have a problem with Carlitos. I just disagree with him.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  87. seriously, if she is listening, meaning the defendant…

    COUNTER CLAIM and call it assault. name the USA, TSA, the specific agent and everyone else as a party. if you are going to take the time to substantiate that you were treated like this, go all out and collect.

    and if i was the judge it would be over in 5 seconds.

    It would be like this:

    me: did you or did you not touch her vagina?

    plaintiff: yes.

    me: did she agree to be touched that way?

    plaintiff: no.

    me: then rape is a fair characterization. Its not the word I would have used, but she is free to call it that without liability. deal with it. dismissed.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  88. AW, you are soooooo insensitive.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (64cedc)

  89. another

    i think maybe i was unclear. i mean the plaintiff’s suit would be over in 5 seconds.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  90. Appropriate thread music.

    There’s a reason I’ve stayed away from the thread.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  91. As I read about this, I have to wonder if the agent in question was an affirmative action hire with all the unfortunate, if not ironic consequences that follow.

    Brooks (a1f0e2)

  92. Kman try to think . . . brain fall down, go BOOM!

    Icy Texan (63dd9e)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1234 secs.