TSA updated rules for people refusing pat down

[Matariki]

http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2010/11/22/tsa-clarifies-policy-for-pat-down-refusal-in-time-for-thanksgiving/

<snip>

The new clarified policy for those who refuse pat downs by a TSA Transportation Security Officer (TSO), any pat down, is that the person who is refusing the pat down will be advised that they will be denied entry into the airport, and be escorted from the security screening area by TSA TSOs or police officers. If the person refuses the pat down again, they will be approached by a Supervisor TSO (STSO), who will again explain that a refusal of the pat down will result in the immediate removal from the security area by police officers. Following an escort out of the security area to the pre-security area the person will be informed that that they are being denied entry and that they may not attempt to reenter security.

If any person who has refused a pat down makes any attempt to go towards the gate area the TSA security checkpoint will be immediately shut down. The shutting down of a security checkpoint may result in a passenger evacuation of a terminal due to a security breach. Any evacuation of passengers would be based on a threat assessment at the discretion of the TSA and law enforcement at the terminal.

Once a Checkpoint has been shut down due to a person that has refused a pat down attempting to head towards the gate area, that person will then be deemed to be disruptive and interfering with airport screening and may be subject to both criminal and civil penalties.

TSA TSOs and STSOs are not required to collect the name and personal information of those escorted from a TSA screening area for refusal of a pat down, however law enforcement may determine if they need to collect the information if they are involved in the escorting of a person from the screening area.

[LisaL]

1. Boy, if they are going to start shutting down terminals

because of somebody who refused a pat down makes any attempts to go to the gate area, one person really can disrupt travel for a long time.

[boppers]

2. Yup. Even longer if they have a gun or a knife.

I recall entire terminals being shut down for people bypassing security *without* being screened.

[Matariki]

3. Yep. But letting people refuse without threat of a fine is a tiny step in the right direction.

[LisaL]

4. Yes, at least now someone can leave

rather than be subjected to the new enhanced pat down.
Of course they won't get to their destination but at least now they can leave and not face the 11,000 $ fine.

[Abq_Sarah]

14. I don't believe the fine would withstand a court challenge

The TSA is already on shaky legal ground regarding searches since they're a federal agency. Fining someone who refuses to submit to security is nothing more than a thuggish tactic designed to strike fear in every traveler. There are no legal grounds for enforcement.

[Matariki]

17. It was in place because of a court challenge.

Whether it would withstand an appeal to a higher court is the question. Maybe they don't want to find out.

[truedelphi]

19. But it is all kabuki theater.

http://cacr.iu.edu/sites/cacr.iu.edu/files/TSA-Policy.pdf

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9611442&mesg_id=9614771

The text at both these links make you realize that our government is really simply trying to distract us while we become numb to lost liberties.

[DainBramaged]

26. Hmmmmmmmmmm

:think:

[BadgerKid]

5. The TSA resorts to guilt and peer pressure.

Next thing you know, they will be saying passengers deserve this manhandlingtreatment. :sarcasm:

[Ted_White]

6. Unreal. What a deceitful tactic. They know damn well that they aren't refusing

because they are a threat to security, but rather due to the offensive, aggressive, and invasive policy.

[Turbineguy]

7. Why not save trouble

and simply deny everyone entrance to the airport for security reasons? You can fly, you just cannot enter the airport.

[somone]

8. The idea is to make this person The World's Worst Person

[progressoid]

9. It just gets better and better all the time.

[CreekDog]

10. Let me guess: and when they shut down the terminal and send everyone outside

the actual bomber will be waiting.

and Al Queda will celebrate how TSA agents of the US Government stampeded innocent Americans to frightful danger.

[Swamp Rat]

11. I hope this decimates airline profits and wreaks havoc on the entire system.

The TSA needs to be abolished.

[Abq_Sarah]

15. Which will be followed

By a federal bailout of the airlines. It doesn't appear the government is willing to reevaluate their position, they're just having a hissy fit.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Well, well, we are starting to see a roll back

even if this is problematic still...

They must be having some really heated discussions.

[LisaL]

13. I bet TSA got worried becuase of the upcoming opt out day,

that they will have a bunch of people on their hands refusing the screenings and the pat downs.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. They must have intel, no pun...

[uppityperson]

16. Glad they can leave without a fine or having names/info taken down.

[sabrina 1]

18. They just keep asking for more outrage, don't they? I hope they keep

it up. It's way past time for another Boston Harbor event, this with Rapiscans rather than teabags.

That whole agency needs to be shut down. They are a threat to the American people.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. While reform in the agency is needed

You prefer Wackenhut? That is what will happen if it is privatized... Or is Xe beter?

Realize we have to have an adult conversation on safety, security and risks...but the reality is that there are some people out there who want to kill you, for real. Right at the moment hilarity has ensued, but they do exist...and I will say it since the guv'ment will not...some of them are internal to the us.

The machines gotta go.. But privatization is NOT an option..

[sabrina 1]

24. I did not say that. Not sure why you would think I did.

I am against the privatization of any organization that receives so much public funding.

I believe the whole police state apparatus that has sprung up since 9/11 should be disbanded completely. They are a failure and if anyone doubts that, they have forgotten Katrina.

We had a perfectly good and successful method of stopping terrorism when it was used for that purpose, before 9/11.

All countries have had threats of fringe groups committing terrorist acts for as long as I can remember. During the Clinton administration, eg, many very serious terror plots were stopped. But that was because Clinton took the threat seriously and respected the intelligence organizations and listened to their warnings.

They stopped what would have been a far more serious threat than 9/11 using old-fashioned terror technigues and cooperation with allies. No full-body scanners were needed nor would they have helped.

Had Clinton been president in 2001, I have no doubt that 9/11 would not have happened. As Richard Clark and others have revealed, Bush ignored the intelligence communities' warnings over and over again and basically told them to get lost. So, we don't need conspiracy theories to know that they let 9/11 happen by their negligence.

There should have been a thorough investigation into the people, including Bush/Cheney and their underlings to find out why they ignored these threats. Giuliani was another one who ignored threats and warnings. Then they should have been fired, impeached or whatever it took to remove these dangrously negligent incompetents from their jobs. Instead, there was no one held accountable and they got to blame the intelligence community with the media helping them to do so.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. What do you think disbanding means in real policy speak?

And in the present there are people out there that do want to kill you. They'll get back to that as soon as the laughing stops...but disbanding is privatization.

Yes we need investigations and all that, and a wholesale policy review, but ypur other choice in the real world IS Wackenhut. Understand that...or not.

[sabrina 1]

33. There are more out there that could kill me, and indeed did kill

someone very close to me, each day I get in my car. Over 44,000 Americans will die from lack of adequate health insurance once again this year. What is anyone doing about saving those lives? Those deaths are an immediate and known threat. Why is there no sense of urgency to prevent THEM?

And how many killers will murder untold numbers of Americans once again, as they do year after year? How do we protect those victims and is anyone even trying?

The truth is that a threat of death by terror is statistically one of the least likely threats to affect people. And, we cannot be 100% safe, although with the money spent on this one threat, we should expect that.

And why the focus on planes in terms of terror threats? Aside from the other possible means by which terrorists could attack this country with far more likelihood of success, bombs in major malls, eg, truck bombs as in the 1993 WTC attack, etc etc, if they are going to focus on planes in the interests of saving lives, they might want to focus on the yearly numbers of airline accidents which have killed thousands of people and will continue to do so, many times accidents that could have been avoided.

The amount of money, the rights being given up, to attempt to try to stop a threat that is comparatively minor compared to all the others we face each day, is ludicrous and way, way out of proportion, IF saving lives is the goal.

The fact is we cannot be 100% safe, and since I do not believe that is the reason for the ever-growing and hugely expensive police state apparatus put in place using fear to do so, nor has it been worth for so many, many reasons, I believe it is all about money. The statistics show the wealth that has been accumulated by fear-mongers is mind-boggling.

I am not worried about a terror threat any more than I worry about death on the road, death for lack of healthcare, by murder, by plane crash and I fail to understand why anyone else is either. I do think people are beginning to use logic finally, and I hope this particular gravy train will end soon and we can get back our freedoms, and end the fear mongering and use logical, normal means to protect against all these threats to our health and well-being, as was done during the Clinton administration at least wrt terror threats.

[sabrina 1]

36. Disbanding, eliminate, defund, remove, go back to where we

were when the Clinton administration was successfully stopping those who wanted to kill us.

How does privatization come into that scenario? No more money sent down the rabbit hole. This police state apparatus is NEW since 9/11. It has not done much to ensure anyone's safety, if it had, they would not have to keep removing our rights would they? Just make it disappear as if it never happened. No private replacements, why would you assume that if we decide we do not need it, we would disband it and then resurrect it as a private enterprise? I'm not following your logic.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. You mean the time I brought a six inch blade

Onto a plane but had to leave my steel toe boots behind, and when it WAS Wackenhut and Elite and Pinkerton doing this.

Yep privatization...there is a congressman in Florida that agrees...at least he's gonna get rich from it.

[sabrina 1]

39. Was that during the Clinton administration? If so, seems they

still managed to keep us safe, and btw, I was flying during that time and never would have gotten on a plane with a weapon.

How about now? An underwear bomber who got on a plane with no problem, in fact he appears to have been escorted even without a passport?

Or a shoe-bomber, and with all these extra precautions, it took passengers to stop those two. So, yes, we do not need a creeping police state to deal with a relatively minor threat.

I notice you ignore all the other threats I mentioned, what should we do about them? It is about saving lives isn't it? Or is it selective? If you die by airplane crash, too bad, not much money to be made there for the fear profiteers, we're too used to plane crashes. And if you die in a car crash, well, no way yet to profit from scaring people to death over driving without the government interfering, they haven't figured out how to profit from that yet.

I tell you what, when Politicians and their families, the President et al, put their children and wives and elderly disabled loved ones through the same procedures each time they fly, I'll think about it again.

No privatization and no government run police state apparatus. End the terrorizing of the American people by this government. There is not much to fear so why are YOU so afraid? I am now more afraid of this government than the remote possibility of meeting a terrorist. The government is intruding on my life every day, and not for my benefit either.

You are I see, using the same attempts at manipulation opinion, as they use. Ooooh, if you don't want the government treating you like a criminal, Palin will do it, I mean a Republican in Florida will take over. Sorry, it's not my concern what a Repub in Florida want to do, he won't get to do it if the people take a stand.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. Yes, that was the Clinton Administration...

The Private security goes all the way back to FORD!

And no recognizing we need security is what adults do. What you want, just don't realize it, is privatization.

Adults also realize we need a top down review...

Oh and you have ignored the fact that I have said we need to israelized the system and remove these machines, that is where top down policy reviews come in.

Alas I am an adult and understand why we need some security, just not security theater bought and paid by corruption levels close to tea pot dome...

Alas I know history. And I also know security...

[coalition_unwilling]

28. From an actuarial point of view, you are far more at risk of death or serious injury getting onto

the 405 Freeway to drive to LAX than you are from terrorist attacks once inside the airport or on a plane. In fact, it has been demonstrated repeatedly that one is far safer as a passenger in a plane than as the driver or passenger in an automobile on US roads.

Here's the question no one seems willing to answer for me: why are airline passengers singled out for such a high degree of 'protection' but not passengers on trains or buses?

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. Tsa is now expandinf

Called Operation Viper

And here is how large the risk is from the ME...about 5000 Wahabi loyalists...

Why the policy review is needed and why I said there are those inside this country who also pose a threat, and not just to airports.

The reason for airports is the economic impact of a successful attack.

Now the machines gotta go, as well as the gropes...but we need to have an adult conversation about this, which we have not.

[CreekDog]

34. I agree and have not really complained about screening until recently

:hi:

[sabrina 1]

61. Good question, I've been asking it forever also. And I've been pointing

out as you just did, the far more dangerous threats to the safety of citizens that they face each day, like driving eg.

I guess they haven't figured out a good enough reason to profit from those threats yet. But give them time. It certainly won't be about safety when they do, like this, it will be about profit.

Why planes? They were provided with a perfect reason to scare the public regarding planes. All I can say about terrorists if indeed they are so unimaginative as to try to blow up any more planes, that they must be the stupidest people on the face of the earth. There are far more effective ways to commit a terror attack than attempting to bring down a plane. What if the next attack is NOT on a plane? You would think any terrorist with a brain would be asking himself the same question :eyes:

[coalition_unwilling]

65. U.S. policy-makers' arrogance and hubris is nowhere more amply

demonstrated than in the tendency to think that the 'terrorists' (their term, not mine) are stupid or lazy and to underestimate our adversaries' ability to think tactically and strategically. Just because they may have less money or worship a different God than we do does not make them one bit less intelligent than we are. We underestimate their abilities and intellect at our perils.
s
My wife and I purposely stay away from any place in LA where big crowds might gather now because, placing myself in the minds of the 'terrorists,' they will probably go after big crowds on their next strike. Oy vey, I shudder to think about it, but my wife and I have our own personal 'exit strategy' from Los Angeles mapped out in case the 'unthinkable' happens and the city is attacked.

On a positive note, here's a creative and imaginative way out of the cycle of irridentism: follow Abraham Lincoln's maxim:

"The best way to get rid of an enemy is to make him a friend."

Oh well, I guess I better never plan on walking the corridors of power in this country. I don't have enough blood lust to qualify.

[sabrina 1]

67. 'The best way to get rid of an enemy is to make him a friend'.

So true. We could start on the road to end terrorist threats by leaving their countries, stop stealing their resources, killing and torturing their citizens and installing puppet government who betray their own people, in their countries. Then we could start prosecuting our own criminals to let them know we the people did not support the crimes.

We cannot bring back their murdered loved ones, but we can give them some hope that we are not their enemies and they do not need to fear us anymore.

But that would mean no more profits from death and destruction so it is unlikely to happen. The fear profiteers need an enemy, so they are happy to keep creating more of them.

Nice rational and logical post, thank you.

[coalition_unwilling]

68. I got fooled into thinking Obama would be my generation's Lincoln. He is not

by any stretch of the imagination. Even though it seemed the times called for a Lincoln and even though it seemed like we might finally have a new Lincoln, instead we got Bush-lite, a figure who -- HAVING TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW -- has now made it official U.S. policy that he can unilaterally order the extra-judicial assassination of a U.S. citizen abroad if he and he alone has determined that the U.S. citizen 'poses a threat to national security.'

OMG, words cannot begin to describe my feelings now of chump-itude. After I spent 8 years protesting non-stop against the depredations of the Bush Junta, to get this is sore consolation.

My relatives and I donated $1000s of dollars and countless hours of our time. Now I want my money and time back, because it was 'false advertising,' pure and simple. What a waste of time, money and effort Obama has turned out to be.

[A Simple Game]

42. What is the track record for the TSA?

How many threats have the TSA actually stopped? Is their track record any better than the private agencies they replaced? They didn't stop the shoe bomber or the underwear bomber. The passengers did that. You want to get serious about threats and risks? Then we need to take all of the money wasted on airport security, give some back to the passengers and apply the rest of it to cancer and heart disease research. And if you really want to get serious about the quality and risks of life, let's stop the wars and apply that money to improving life for everyone on the planet.

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. The shoe bomber came from a European airport

So did the undie bomber.

You realize TSA don't have jurisdiction outside US borders, right?

So let's start by establishing a few facts.

And yes there were failures, wrong alphabet soup.

As to the US, and I am a critic, when was the last breach of the system? 911

The next breach came from a general aviation port with no checks.

So let's start the discussion from a basis in reality.

[A Simple Game]

55. The TSA doesn't have a presence outside of the US.

That's true. I believe we do set the standards for security on international flights to the US but it's too late to look it up. And thank you for realizing that the TSA had nothing to do with stopping them, nor would any of the other alphabet soups in this country. The TSA wasn't involved with any security for the private plane flown into the IRS building, but neither would either of the other agencies you mention. Would a scanner or a enhanced pat down have stopped the pilot from getting into his plane and flying it into a building?

Reality; if someone with at least a normal IQ wants to cause mass harm in this or any other country and can keep his or her mouth shut, they have a more than even possibility of success.

Reality; about 3000 people died on 911, a tragedy, yes. 3000 people is about one third the number of people that die in this country every week from cancers of all kinds.

People that live in reality prioritize their resources. With 500,000 people dying from cancer every year in this country, I know where my priorities are going to be.

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. I also realize why we need security

not security theater... we could spend our security dollars far better.

[A Simple Game]

57. Exactly, we could spend it far better.

I tend to hyperbole, it helps me to understand things better. There is a need for security, but the direction we are going doesn't help at all. The only thing those machines and pat downs will catch now are the idiots. We would catch them anyway.

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. What we need as a country is to have an ADULT conversation

on the subject... the guv'ment is acting to prevent 100% of attacks, imposible standard, and the people are showing a traditional fear of any government... which makes for a grand combination.

Of course we also need an INVESTIGATION on as to how these machines came to be.

[ixion]

20. The TSA once again shows it has ZERO respect for Freedom and Liberty

and as such, they should be disbanded post-haste.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. I will ask you the same question I asked Sabrina above

Is wackenhut better? What about Xe?

There needs to be a serious adult conversation on Why we need security, there are people out there who want to kill you, like for real. They are not limited to the ME either...

We need a whole sale policy review and lose this very murican trait of re-inventing the wheel, but you think private contractors will be better and more accountable?

This knee jerk don't help. It is not a one or the other. And if this were Wackenhut you'd see no response at all.

[ixion]

37. knee jerk is the TSA, DHS, the unPATRIOTic Act, MCA, etc

Despising the tyranny of the police state is not. That is something that has been consistent over time.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. So since you are for going for the ante

That IS privatization... Congrats.

I have fought the patriot act in very concrete ways, but as an adult I know there is some ,eassure of threat. They need a review, but Xe will not do this better.

[ixion]

48. They won't do better if they're allowed to act in that manner

The key is the act, not the actor. There is no reason for such invasive measures. I understand the need for some level of security to be in place, but the blanket security net tactics used by the TSA are not the answer. Further, the agency needs an aggressive auditor and citizen panel that control it's actions and reign it in. It disturbs me that they seem nonplussed by the fact that they have no regard or respect whatsoever for the ideals they claim to be protecting.

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. You are right, they will be worst

and that is the point.

What part of POLICY REVIEW is so damn fucking difficult to understand? Which incidentally IS SORELY NEEDED!

There is also politics at play here... they, in DC that is, are afraid of a successful attack on THEIR WATCH. Hence the damn fucking knee jerk, but knee jerk from our part don't help either.

So adults have to start talking of this as. yes we get it, there is a threat. Yes we get it, you cannot protect us 100% of the time, and yes we get it, sooner or later they will get through. Oh and we get it. We also WANT YOU TO DO a policy review and RESPECT the fourth Amendment.

But the first thing to realize is that adults recognize that there IS a threat out there, and the threat is not just EXTERNAL.

But that is what adults do.

[ixion]

52. I am an adult who wants to live in the Land of the Free and the Brave

if you want to live behind walls in the Land of the Enslaved and Terrified, that's your own choice.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fleshdancer]

25. I was wondering if changes would be made before National Opt-Out Day tomorrow

So no more ridiculous fee. Good.

[KansDem]

29. Man, talk about making this shit up as you go along!

What will the rules be tomorrow?

TSA has no credibility.

[Renew Deal]

30. Does this mean the "don't touch my junk" guy is off the hook?

Sounds like they relaxed this policy.

[librechik]

31. this guy beat the system--

http://noblasters.com/post/1650102322/my-tsa-encounter

"...So, since I had nobody waiting for me at home and no connecting flight to catch, I had some free time. I decided to test my rights.

After putting all my stuff through the x-ray, I was asked to go through the Backscatter. I politely said that I didn’t want to. The technician quipped to his colleague, “We’ve got an opt-out.” They laughed. He turned back and started to explain.

After he finished, I said, “I understand what the pat-down entails, but I wanted to let you know that I do not give you permission to touch my genitals or the surrounding area. If you do, I will consider it assault.”

He called his manager over, who again informed me of the policy. Throughout this event, this happened quite a few times. After raising my concerns regarding the policy to an officer, they often simply quoted back the policy. For the sake of brevity, I will simply say “Policy restatement.”

I said, “I am aware that it is policy, but I disagree with the policy, and I think that it is unconstitutional. As a U.S. citizen, I have the right to move freely within my country as long as I can demonstrate proof of citizenship and have demonstrated no reasonable cause to be detained...”


(more at link)

[HuckleB]

49. So he claims.

I'd like to see his story independently verified. Heck, I'd just like to see scans of his boarding passes.

[Matariki]

62. There is audio he recorded on his iPhone

while he could have got a bunch of friends, wrote a script and faked the whole thing, I sort of doubt it.

edit to add the links:

blog entry: http://noblasters.com/post/1650102322/my-tsa-encounter

audio links: http://noblasters.com/post/1656164483/my-tsa-encounter-audio

[HuckleB]

64. I sort of doubt the story.

It's quite contrived.

[Matariki]

66. Did you listen to the audio? It's real enough.

[sabrina 1]

69. Were for these full body scanners during the Bush administrion?

Or were you with the Civil Liberties' organizations who challenged them on Constitutional grounds, successfully?

[TheWatcher]

35. "Springtime For Airport Security...."

Bomp-Ba-Dum-Dum

The Fascists are happy and gay

We're causing harassment and delay

Groping your junk to keep you "safe"

Springtime for Airport Security

Bomp-Ba-Dum-Dum

Finding those Bombs in your Pants

Springtime For Airport Security

Come Get Your Love Pats by Random Chance

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5L213Ip_Dg4/S82_VZuD3CI/AAAAAAAAGyI/iFgINs6lCnY/s1600/dick+shawn+hitler.jpg

[SoCalDem]

40. Refund their money & escort them from the building...simple

and then put them on a refused-search-no-fly list so they cannot fly again.

When that list is big enough, they may come up with new procedures, and in the meantime, the ones who are likely to slow things down for the rest, will no longer have the stage.

No need to humiliate them, or fine them.. just prohibit them from flying.

[MedicalAdmin]

44. I take it you are a frequent flyer

Who doesn't like others exerting their rights. You are probably right.. It's high time we punished those opposed to the police state. Fucking commies!

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. And that is the other knee jerk extreme

These machines have no place, neither do the gropes.

[Caretha]

50. Now that is the

most ridiculous thing I've heard in years...keep it up, I like laughing at people who only know how to play Go Fish!

[KoKo]

45. Lot's of DU'ers don't Realize...THE RULES HAVE CHANGED...we are on HIGHT ALERT

for this Holiday Season and Afterwards.

What you dealth with before was just an annoyance...THEY (with our Taxpayers Dollars at the TSA) are GOING FOR THE "FULY MONTY" here!

The truth of it has been obscured by the MSM and even here on DU...but THINGS HAVE CHANGED once AGAIN for FLYING RULES...and what is MANDATORY NOW...is what used to be OPTIONAL before.

BE ALERT!

[Lorien]

63. "Hight Alert?" "Fuly Monty"?

They've got you so scared that you're babbling now!

[Primitive Mind]

59. The scanning and groping is worthless

Full body scans and groping are not necessary. Americans have a tendency to just throw money at a problem rather than thinking it through and a lot of people were probably right when they stated that the TSA was a huge mistake to begin with. The metal scanners and a pass through a sniffer to detect any explosives along with luggage X-Ray provides security enough, and actually the sniffer would be more than most security around the world. Then anyone who sets off the metal detector or sniffer could be taken aside and questioned along with a random baggage inspection whould offer all the protection required. These current security methods are counter productive and needlessly invasive.

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. Add profiling and you got the Israeli system

we like to reinvent the wheel...

welcome to Du by the way.

One reason they have not is that it is personnel intensive, and nobody can profit from that.

As to TSA... I'll slightly disagree as private security will and would have to follow Federal Standards. I suspect Wackenhut would be even less compliant to complaints.