If you enjoy what you find here, be sure to subscribe or become a follower, so you can keep up with all my bloggy goodness.
Censorship by the government. When is it ever okay? When the materials at hand put the government officials in a sticky spot? When the information is "dangerous" to troops and citizens? When it is done in our best interest? Who is to say where our best interests lie?
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was arrested today, on likely bogus charges of sex abuse. Isn't it funny that the one thing they had on him was something that is definitely a he said/ she said sort of situation. Isn't if funny that, after the man may have gone a little too far in publishing classified documents, he finds himself awaiting trial?
Does this scare anyone else? Does anyone else worry about the power of the US Government? Are you concerned by the fact that government officials continue to violate the rights of its citizens? Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Information, Freedom from Illegal Search and Seizure.... all flushed down the drain in recent days.
If you enjoy what you find here, be sure to subscribe or become a follower, so you can keep up with all my bloggy goodness.
My husband and I have rarely had the opportunity to get away together. We spent a kid-free weekend in Gatlinburg about five years ago and we've visited Johnsonville, TN. But, that's about it. For that matter, we rarely get to take a vacation together at all. While I'll take the children to the beach with my mother, he'll stay at home because he can't take the time off from work. However, due to an upcoming conference in San Fransisco, that was going to change next summer. If he decided to go, I was hoping to fly out with him and, when he wasn't networking and attending conference-things, we were going to have a little time to ourselves.
Our local airport does not have the Peeping Tom naked screening machines as of yet. Given the small stature of our city, and the fact that many people drive two hours to fly out of the next largest airport in the area, they will likely be a long time coming. Though, if we did have them, I likely would not go through one anyway. I'm jittery about the typical pass-through metal detectors on a good day. Now, you want me to travel through an x-ray machine that the laughable FDA has deemed safe, but private studies have found that they emit varying degrees of radiation? Without a cape that protects my girly bits? No thank you. I'm not going to do it.
But, then again, I don't have to worry about that. Our airport doesn't have the machines. So, their newest method of screening involves this "enhanced pat-down." In addition to providing maximum security in small airports, this is obviously an attempt to enact a humiliating negative consequence to opting out of the Peeping Tom machines. When a passenger sets off the metal detector or opts out of the imaging technology machines, TSA agents have been known to loudly announce the coming fondling by shouting "opt-out, we have an opt-out here," thereby bringing attention to the imminent public humiliation. Using the fronts of their hands and their fingers, TSA agents are now required to fondle passengers' genitals and breasts if the passenger either chooses to opt-out of the new naked screeners, or if such screeners are not available at all and the passenger sets off the metal detector. The TSA has determined that dicks need to be grabbed, breasts need to be lifted (and likely squeezed-- what if a wanna-be terrorist has had a bomb inserted during a boob job??) and labia need to be swept with a "sliding hand motion" in order to assure that passengers aren't hiding weapons in their most private places. Apparently, those places aren't so private anymore. At least, not if you purchase an airline ticket. I mean, really... why bother just sweeping? Go ahead and probe us to make sure we haven't stuck anything inside our hoochies. What? Right, that's probably the next step in this crazy plot to make the average American citizen feel safer while treating them no better than a common criminal or an assumed terrorist.
I mean, really. Why do they think passengers will just idly stand by and let this happen? Do we not have any privacy any more? What about our freedom from unreasonable search and seizure? I understand that, traditionally, courts have allowed airlines and the TSA to be more vigilant in their searches for the supposed common good, but how far is too far? At what point are we allowed to shout "enough!"
Well, apparently we aren't. John Tyner, a passenger who recently told a TSA agent "Don't touch my junk or I'll have you arrested," was thrown out of the airport and is now facing a civil lawsuit and hefty fines. According to CNN:
Tyner could face a civil penalty as high as $11,000, according to Michael Aguilar, the TSA's federal security director in San Diego, who defended the behavior of his officers during the confrontation. "He's violated federal law and federal regulations, which states once you enter and start the process you have to complete it," he said. .......
But anyone who refuses to complete the screening process will be denied access to airport secure areas and could be subject to civil penalties, the administration said, citing a federal appeals court ruling in support of the rule.
The ruling, from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, says that "requiring that a potential passenger be allowed to revoke consent to an ongoing airport security search makes little sense in a post-9/11 world. Such a rule would afford terrorists multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by 'electing not to fly' on the cusp of detection until a vulnerable portal is found."
Therefore, just buying a ticket, showing up to the airport, and entering the security line, removes all of a passenger's rights as to what they will experience at the security checkpoint. You can't say no. You can't turn back. You can't make requests such as, "Don't touch my junk." You just have to shut up, stand still, and deal with it. Something about that is terribly wrong. In this country, a consenting adult is not legally permitted to have sexual relations with whomever they choose, however they choose, in some states. Yet, in all states, the federal government can grab you where ever they want, take pictures of whatever they want, put you through the loops and sexually abuse you, yet you cannot say anything about it and, as of now, have no legal leg to stand on.
Even worse, this doesn't just apply to you, it applies to your teenagers as well. Children under 12, of course, will receive a modified pat-down. But, we have not yet been told what that will be. Do you want this happening to your 14 year old daughter?
I certainly don't. Beyond the fact that I feel this is incredibly inappropriate to subject ANYONE to, and the strong feelings I have against going through security due to these newly implemented measures, I know what it is like to be 14 and helpless against sexual assault from an authority figure. That's right, it happened to me. I will NOT allow the same to happen to my daughter or my son. I don't want anyone looking at them naked and I don't want them to be felt up and groped. So, what's the alternative?
For me, it is not to fly. At this time, I do not anticipate accompanying my husband on his possible trip to California. Of course, as public outcry grows and time passes, current events may change that decision. So don't hold me to it, k?
The sticky thing about it is this: I have the luxury of choosing not to take a trip that requires flying. Many people do not. They must travel for work, sometimes quite often. They don't have a choice in the matter. What will those people do? It is likely that they will take the abuse quietly. They will keep their heads down and their mouths shut. They might make sure they don't have a bit of metal on their person, so they won't have to endure the humiliation of the enhanced pat-down in small airports. They will go without their belts, their underwire bras, their fancy studded shoes. They will go to the furthest extent to make sure that they don't set off the metal detectors and, even then, that may not be enough. Random screenings, anyone? I can bet that they are on their way.
So, the FBI has gotten it's panties in a wad over something stupid. I'm sure this isn't the first time, but don't they have anything better to do? I don't know that this is the best use of our government's funds, considering, you know, that we are in a recession and a war (wars?), and fighting terrorism, and being all generally heroic and all. But, anyway, in case you haven't heard, the FBI is upset that it's seal is being displayed as part of a Wikipedia entry about-- what else?-- the FBI. oooooohhhhhh...... somebody's gonna get it now.....
Somebody from the FBI sent a letter to somebody at Wikipedia asking for it's immediate removal. But, you know what? Wikipedia refused. Yep, they refused the FBI. How big are their balls?
So, the whole thing is going to go to court, I'm sure. More government money flying out the ying-yang over a stupid digital representation of the FBI. You can read about the whole mess here and here, as well as in numerous blogs and things floating around the grand old duke of york internet. So, what do you think? Does the FBI have a case? Should they have a case? Or, are they going a bit too far? Poking around where they don't belong? Am I going to get into trouble for posting the seal here? To be continued from a holding cell near you...
