eym_sirius

I couldn't make a lick of sense out of that due to the faulty premise and the convoluted logic.

No, that's okay. You fantasize about your wife and female TSA agents. You've got your hands full, apparently.

If your friend was getting "groped" by a TSA agent before the enhanced security measures -- It was likely after work hours and it was consensual. That, or he's just yanking YOUR chain to see if you'll repeat everything you hear.

I kinda thought that you didn't ACTUALLY fly and you're just speculating on the outrage that you'd have -- If you did fly. But since you don't -- what's the source of your outrage and fear? How many times have you played in your mind the scene of a TSA agent handling you? That's called a "FANTASY"! Now we're getting to the source of your fears. Now, please continue to tell everybody about the TSA groping your wife. How long have you had that fantasy?

Yes, you have to love those "friend" stories. I was just about to call BS on BS.

Got it. People should be scared of catching something from a TSA pat down. What-all else should people be petrified of? I'm eager to hear from those who seem to be afraid of --- just about everything that has to do with the government. It's a fascination with me, though. I've already decided that I'm not going to be afraid of anything. But please continue with all of the things that frighten you.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that we're AT WAR and then minimize the importance of TSA personnel. Which is it? Are we at war, or not?? If we are then you and your wife either quit whining about someone possibly touching you when they're searching for exploding devices, or don't fly. Stay at home, where you won't have to quiver in fear at the prospect of a TSA pat-down. What are you so afraid of? Really? Or is this faux fear, you don't really fly anyway and you're just trying to model what others SHOULD be fearful according to your hierarchy of the things that petrify you?

They change their gloves. They had a whole bunch of extras with them when they patted us down.

I see what's in store for the fearful - quaking in their boots like little schoolgirls! One things for sure, when they grope the fearful, they ain't gonna feel nothing! "Oooohhh! I was touched inappropriately - I think I'm going to faint!!" --- That's the fearful! You want your wife to be touched only by you??? In no circumstances could another person - even a woman - touch your wife? How about her DOCTOR??? If it's important enough and it's the person's JOB - You still have those standards?? Why? What do you think is going to happen to your wife during an enhanced pat-down by a wom

I had a well-defined pattern going for awhile. I got married right out of college Stayed married for five years Single again for five years Married again - lasted five years Single again for five years Married again - Presently for nine years

Geez, it's always the same message - "Be Afraid" Be afraid of "Them", Be afraid of "Us"! Whatever you do -- Be afraid!! I'm not going to be afraid at all. I'm just not going to live my life in fear. I'm not afraid of Muslims, the Taliban, Brown People, radiation, IED's, Nuclear Bombs, Global Warming, The Mafia, Democrats, Socialists, Republicans, The TSA, The IRS, The Green Party, The Tea Party, The Green Tea Party -- None of that! Let those who fear-monger quake in their own boots! I've got better things to do!!

Okay, I thought that the cameras were set up to detect large motion objects, like vehicles, and wouldn't detect a person walking across the parking lot. I wish that I knew more about the guy to figure out what he would probably do. If it was ME going driving to that spot, it would be to bow hunt. (not that I would bow hunt in a park, though). I would use my climbing stand and I'd be about 15 - 20 ft up in a tree. Has the fellow's computer been examined for evidence of why he might have gone there?

I'll take issue with the case that you used as a reference. In this case, the individual submitted to the metal detector and wanding which gave TSA personnel probable cause to search further. That is not the situation with a person being randomly selected for a pat-down (or feel-up). While I personally don't mind the search, I'm not sure that RANDOM searches pass Constitutional muster. The case that you cited was not random.

For the anti-searchers - Enjoy! "Hands Down Your Pants" by eym_sirius Hands down your pants! Hands down your pants! Lookin' like a fool with his hands down your pants! Makin' sure that you've turned off your cell phone Lookin' like a dog that's gone after a bone! Pervs seekin' jobs inside the TSA Dream job for perverts - Gettin' paid to play! Hands down your pants! Hands down your pants! Lookin' like a fool with his hands down your pants Feelin' up the ladies, lookin' like a fool! Reminds you of the back seat when you were in school! Feelin' all around with no warn

For the frequent flyer - Just in time for the holidays! (available in red only) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZjAantupsA

See? That's the first mental image that I had! I think that civil disobedience would have women wearing cone-shaped bras and men wearing cod-pieces. They'd have to pass NEW laws against "male enhancement" attire or accoutrements! Women -- It'd be like Mardi Gras!! But without the beads. Or the fun. You know -- if a guy has a boehner, it might resemble a stick of dynamite on that xray machine! Somebody ought to test it. You would SO make the national news!! Note: By "YOU", I didn't mean you, momof3! Although YOU would certainly make the news if you had a boehner!

I'm just wondering if investigators might have information that is taking them in a different direction from LMP?

I looked at the search path/pattern. The assumption was made that he went on a path closest to the truck. But what if he went in the opposite direction with the intention of ending up where his truck was? Usually this is what you do when you go on a hike/wilderness walk. You're pretty tired when you're finished with the walk and you're right there at your vehicle at the path's end (where most people assumed was the beginning)?

So a guy goes through the xray screening and he's wearing an ----- adornment, an appliance (see patent). http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090113605 Or a guy wears a sock in his jock. There's no law against this. Would the individual be strip-searched because HE'S enhanced? Okay -- I'll say it. How about if Ron Jeremy goes through this "enhanced" screening?

This would be a perfect Saturday Night Live sketch for "Pat". When we were detained (not at the checkpoint, but at the boarding gate), it was because we weren't on the manifest, but we had tickets. The airline had made a booking mistake and cancelled our tickets. They put us back on at the last minute with, essentially, a hand-written ticket. They sent a man and a woman out to "pat" us down. The man patted me down and the woman patted Mrs. Sirius. But if they didn't know which agent to use? ( I know that a person's Driver's License indicates sex, but they could make a joke out of that

Now you're getting somewhere! The random searches are a possible violation, since there's no probable cause for a search. It could be argued that a case could be thrown out if the evidence recovered from a random search amounted to a violation of S & S. I imagine that this is the reason that TSA is under Homeland Security - to give the government broader powers when it comes to what is reasonable. Because the airplane could be used as a WMD and the government has a Constitutional requirement regarding defense, the burden of proof would likely be on the one claiming that the search is

How is "fighting them over there so that we don't have to fight them over here" preventing anything? Answer - It's not, hence then need for screening. But here's the deal. It's all political. If the enhancements were not put into place and there was a situation, the criticism could be rightly made that we weren't doing everything that we can to prevent these attacks. I've had the pat-down and if the enhancement become invasive to the point of strip search - I'll deal with that situation if it ever presents itself. It won't.

I think that freedom is not free. It may cost a patriotic citizen a pat-down. It's not that big of a sacrifice. If you don't mind the screening, it could be that you have your priorities in proper order and that you're doing your part as a patriotic citizen.

I'm a little surprised at some staunch conservatives sounding like card-carrying ACLU members! I look at participation in the screening process as doing my part to combat terrorism. There are men and women risking their lives in military combat and a physical pat-down or xray screening is all that's required of me? It seems like those staunch conservatives are fine with other people risking their lives in war, but they draw the line on their patriotism when it requires the personal sacrifice of a security pat-down.

We're talking about the same thing. Without the shopping season, there wouldn't be a Xmas. It's okay- you were just being overly dramatic in saying that terrorism would shut down the xmas shopping season. There are other avenues to shop. Just like there were other avenues of travel after 9/11.