Two Transportation Security Administration screeners at Denver International airport have been fired after investigators found that a male TSA employee would select handsome men that he wanted to fondle as part of a secondary patdown. Before you give the TSA much credit however you may want to read on.
Accordingly to the reports, the unnamed male TSA screener told a female screen that he liked to grope the genitals of male passengers and that he would alert another screener that the man was a female to cause the scanning machine to indicate an anomaly in the genital area. He would then do a secondary screening and grope the passenger. This appears to have occurred roughly a dozen times.
In December 2013, Jamelyn Steenhoek filed a complaint against TSA screeners at the airport saying the frisking she received at the same Denver airport amounted to a sexual assault, particularly the fondling of her breasts. No charges were filed.
Now here is the rub, both literally and figuratively. The TSA was given an anonymous tip of an employee who was groping passengers for sexual pleasure on Nov. 18, 2014. The tip came from another TSA employee. Yet, it took nearly three months for TSA act. It just left this man in a position to sexually assault passengers.
It is also unclear why this is not a crime. There was no basis for fondling the genitals of these passengers but the TSA employee is not named let alone charged. Presumably, a man walking through the airport fondling people would have faced a bit more of a penalty than just being led out of the airport.
Source: CBS
Mike:
You asked.
There are many other modes of transportation available aside from flying they just aren’t as convenient but they still fulfill mundane responsibilities, like feeding their families and can be accomplished without genuflection and security theater.
Hilarious, Inga.
Ad hoc norms are probably the only way the left can square this circle.
Persona:
That’s wonderful. Unfortunately, there are many True Americans who have to continue air travel in order to fulfill mundane responsibilities, like feeding their families.
Mala fides argumentation. Not worth consideration.
Nick:
I am patted down by either a man or a woman virtually every time I enter a courthouse which, as you can imagine, I do with some frequency. I expect those individuals to act professionally regardless of their sexual identity, just as I expect male gynecologists to act professionally when they examine their patients. Were I ever subjected to a questionable frisk, I think I would recognize it.
You need to read more closely.
I never equated homosexuality with perversion, you did.
I have only asked for you or Max or Mike to define ‘perversion.’
Mike and you have cited ‘tradition’ and the law.
My argument is that you discarded those as defenses against gay marriage, so you cannot claim those in defense against something you think is a perversion.
This is because perversion is defined as ‘sexual behavior or desire that is considered abnormal or unacceptable’, i.e., outside of the normal range.
But feminism and gay rights have taught us that norms are merely a tool of the oppressive patriarchy and must be abandoned.
Yet now, in this thread, you are claiming to rely on a ‘norm’ when no such norm is permitted elsewhere.
It’s completely hypocritical and mendacious to depend on normative behavior at random.
That’s not how it works.
@Ingannie
Well, you can launch another canard about how these questions are inane, or irrelevant, or intellectually dishonest, but the upshot is that once again you are turning tail and running for the hills. The people here are not stupid, and your evasions are obvious. This is why many people here do not take you seriously, or regard you as someone without a shred of honesty or integrity.
Sooo, please answer Pogo’s question, and mine! If not for us, for your own reputation.
Do I need to do you a scenario like Bobby the Bi-sexual Boyfriend, and call it Bobby, My Granddaughter’s Upskirt Photo King Boyfriend??? Or, Bobby, My Granddaughter’s Used-Panty Purchaser/Sniffer Boyfriend???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
“Sexual battery by a homosexual does not support the view that homosexuality is a perversion any more than..”
—————
“No one argued that it did so but Inga.
Tell her.”
************
Pogo that is incredibly dishonest and in bad faith. You really have no argument and seem to be consumed with bigotry. Homosexuals, Muslims, feminists, what next? It’s displayed on these threads daily.
@Squeeky
That’s how Inga concedes.
Mike:
Personanongrata is my nom de guerre.
If any person truly wanted my personal information it is available on the intertubes.
As for standing-fast in the face of tyranny before the TSA was created I flew on average 100,000 miles per year both domestically and internationally for business. Since I refuse to genuflect and prostrate myself before my betters in the TSA I gave up my consultancy gig and no longer travel by air.
As individuals we can only affect change on the small scale one way is by voluntarily deciding not to cooperate with our oppressors whenever possible.
“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds.” ~ Patrick Henry
“treating the battery in this instance as an inevitable consequence of the social and legal acceptance of homosexuality.”
Funny what happens when you take down a fence when you didn’t know what it was for.
Mike, I am speaking to the problems of hiring homosexual men to have the power and control to frisk many men a day. To not acknowledge the potential problem w/ that, while everyone absolutely accepts hetero men should not be allowed to frisk women, is blatantly hypocritical.
“An unlawful touching is a battery. An unlawful sexual touching is a sexual battery. …Traditions still codify behaviors, but traditions also evolve.”
Homosexuality used to be similarly against the law.
So did marriage between blacks and whites.
So why aren’t you evolving on this as well?
On what basis are you calling Touchers a perversion?
You cite tradition. But the traditions have been upended.
You cannot simply [pick and choose traditions like in some ethical cafeteria.
“Sexual battery by a homosexual does not support the view that homosexuality is a perversion any more than..”
No one argued that it did so but Inga.
Tell her.
“Furthermore, there are many people who regard the moving of goalposts to be a function of knowledge.”
Exactly my point.
What ignorance do you demonstrate by refusing to admit that ‘unwanted touching’ can no longer be called a perversion?
By what right do you argue that the goalposts have only moved moved thus far but no farther?
Nick:
As I said initially, the two agents in question should be prosecuted for sexual assault and battery. It is an emotional issue only to the victims. Pogo did not strike a nerve; instead, he reacted to the sexual identity of the perpetrators by treating the battery in this instance as an inevitable consequence of the social and legal acceptance of homosexuality.
Intellectually dishonest ‘questions’ made in bad faith are not deserving of any consideration. It would be a huge waste of anyone’s time.
@Pogo
I doubt you will be successful getting Ingannie to answer simple questions when such answer will either (1)conflict with her stated position on an issue, or (2) make it apparent that reasonable minds could disagree on that issue.
For example, the other night on the Tennessee Bible State Book thread, I asked her this three times, and she never deigned to answer:
Of course, she never answered it. She just dodged and ran. Therefore, I expect her to run and dodge about the “what is a pervert” question. Because an answer is always going to be subjective, thus requiring a person to operate from some position of x,y,and z is normative, and a,b.and c isn’t—and is therefore a perversion. With that basis, a person could reasonably believe that homosexuality is a perversion. And if that is a reasonable belief, then you don’t get to call those people names like “homophobic” or “bigoted”. And, whoosh there you are if you are left being Ingannie and forced to argue substantive issues instead of just name-calling and catty sniping.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Point 1: Pogo has struck a nerve! We have men frisk men because under normal circumstances, it is sexual neutral. The frisker gets no sexual pleasure from touching the genitals of the man he is frisking. Having frisked many men, including cavity searches @ Leavenworth, it is VERY intrusive. I would ask if anyone has a problem w/ this first paragraph if they are emotionally capable of discussing this problem logically.
Point 2: if we put men in positions of power and control, having the legal authority to frisk other men, do we not have a right and DUTY to make sure these men are not getting any sexual gratification exerting this power over another man they frisk? If not, why do we not allow heterosexual men frisk women? Please separate point 1 responses from point 2 responses, if you are intellectually or psychologically capable of doing so.
If logic, not emotion and PC is applied to this problem, then it is really quite simple. All this said, there are homosexual men who are morally equipped to frisk other men w/o betraying that trust. And, there are heterosexual men w/ that same moral compass, who could frisk women righteously. But, it is a case by case basis in determining this. And, that is fraught w/ danger.
Persona:
Since you post anonymously, I assume that you do not count yourself among those True Americans who stand fast in the face of tyranny.
Any person who prostrates themselves before the cretins of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in order to be seated on board an aircraft is a fraction of an American.
True Americans stand-fast in the face of tyranny, they do not genuflect to their oppressors satisfaction.
If American’s had half the spine they claim to possess they would boycott flying in mass until the airlines screamed uncle due to the loss of revenue. But alas the comforts of easy travel apparently far outweigh the weight of maters yoke upon your shoulders.
How many terrorists has TSA security procedures uncovered out of the tens of billions of airline passengers TSA screened domestically in the 14 years since it’s inception in 2001? ZERO, ZIP, ZING, NADA, NONE.
TSA offers nothing but security theater which mindless/spineless American chattel eat up like candy.
Halinski was asked directly whether there has been even a single instance of an arrest or detention of anyone, in any way, related to terrorism based on airport whole-body scanners. His answer was, “No.” Of course, he then went on to assert that the mere fact that we have these whole-body scanners is keeping terrorists away. (Evidently, terrorists don’t have access to websites that tell them which airports have whole-body scanners and which don’t.)
The above paragraph is excerpted from:
TSA News
TSA executive admits not a single terrorist-related arrest has resulted from whole-body scanners
By Charles Leocha | May 17, 2012
http://tsanewsblog.com/3160/news/tsa-executive-admits-not-a-single-terrorist-related-arrest-has-resulted-from-whole-body-scanners/
Personanongrata – neither my brother or sister will fly because of TSA.
“Unwanted touching is generally repulsive to most human beings.”
People used to use the word ‘repulsive’ about homosexuals, Inga.
Now you are using it against people who self-identify as ”Touchers’.
Who are you to define a norm, when you decry other norms?
Where is the proof that ‘unwanted touching’ is outside of some norm?
What norm is that?
Who says so?
Aren’t ‘norms’ just part of the oppressive patriarchy?
Don’t be such a hater.