From Triptych2002@aol.com
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/airportpatdowns24nov04.shtml
November 24, 2004

Forward courtesy of Slim Spurling <Acuvacset@aol.com >

This NY Times article (below), ladies and gentlemen, is where it really all begins to get just plain ugly, before it slides tragically into irreversible danger. Please read the article below and just see if it doesn't piss off something deep inside you. Read it and see if you think you've been brainwashed quite yet into believing that we have to suspend human dignity to accomplish such an ends in the name of "safety". One little right at a time do we surrender because we've been made very, very afraid. But this...this is what we should be very, very afraid of, you see. Have you heard the saying: "We have seen the beast, and the beast is us"?

This is the point of revelation, where individual power can still be accessed and exerted while we actually still have rights, where our unified voices of protest in the name of human dignity still have the authority to remind our officials that WE pay their salaries -- something over which we most assuredly still have control to legislate. Just think about how powerful you actually ARE with how you use your money and how you focus your spending. WE the people are in control of our lives even yet, we the people still financially support the decision makers who are making less and less prudent decisions in the name of "democracy", "security", and "terrorism". Folks, I hate to say it, but when you read this article, you'll see true, unabashed terrorism alive and breathing and pretending to be something it isn't -- right here on these hallowed shores. THIS is terrorism. Plain and simple. And it's by far NOT the only example of terrorism occurring on our shores.

I'd be most grateful if you'd forward this to ALL your friends, with a note reminding them simply to THINK. Think about the absurdity, and the beginnings of total de-humanization created by blind, unsubstantiated, irrational and actually erroneous fear. Then ask them to send it on to all their friends if they feel so moved to do so.

Then track down Coast-To-Coast-AM on your AM dial sometime and listen to that program, or record it if it's too late for you to listen (it's usually on over the midnight hour in most areas). It's a fabulous program that offers alternative views to world events, with guests and opinions you'll NEVER hear through mainstream media channels.

Then write your congressmen and tell them what's on your mind, what's pissing you off, and remind them that you pay their salaries and that they are obliged to represent your ACTUAL voice in Washington. Whatever it is, whatever you feel, whatever you think, whatever you'd like to see occur in this country, take SOME kind of action to let the politicians know that we the people are still alive and breathing and that we haven't fallen as far asleep as they think. Why bother, you might ask? Read on, and you'll see.


Many Women Say Airport Pat-Downs Are a Humiliation

By JOE SHARKEY, The New York Times

At a security checkpoint recently at the Fort Lauderdale airport, Patti LuPone, the singer and actress, recalled, she was instructed to remove articles of clothing. "I took off my belt; I took off my clogs; I took off my leather jacket," she said. "But when the screener said, 'Now take off your shirt,' I hesitated. I said, 'But I'll be exposed.' " When she persisted in her complaints, she said, she was barred from her flight.

Heather L. Maurer, a business executive from Washington, had a similar experience at Logan Airport in Boston recently. And a few weeks ago, Jenepher Field, 71, who walks with the aid of a cane, was subjected to a breast pat-down at the airport outside Kansas City, Mo.

These women and a good many others, both frequent and occasional travelers, say they are furious about recent changes in airport security that have increased both the number and the intensity of pat-downs at the nation's 450 commercial airports. And they are not keeping quiet.

In dozens of interviews, women across the country say they were humiliated by the searches, often done in view of other passengers, and many said they had sharply reduced their air travel as a result.

The new security policies on body searches were put into practice in mid-September, after a terrorist attack in Russia a few weeks before that destroyed two planes, killing 90 people. Two Chechen women were thought to have carried nonmetallic explosives onto the planes, officials said. It is not known whether the explosives were hidden in the women's clothing, or whether the women merely boarded unimpeded, carrying the explosives.

But the Transportation Security Administration in the United States, already worried that metal detectors could not pick up nonmetallic explosives, issued new regulations requiring airport screeners to conduct more frequent and more intense secondary searches and pat-downs.

The agency, part of the Department of Homeland Security, declined to break down the percentage of searches conducted by gender, but a spokeswoman said it did not treat women differently from men under the policy. While some men have complained about the groping nature of the searches, women object the most. Several women interviewed said that male colleagues had scoffed at their complaints, saying that a physical pat-down was a small price to pay for security.

"I laugh when men tell me that," said Betty Spence, president of the National Association for Female Executives, who says she has been selected for pat-downs several times in the last month on trips from New York to Chicago, Washington and Miami on various airlines. "Men don't know how offensive it is to be touched by anyone when you don't want to be touched."

She said she had switched to driving whenever she could.

Amy Von Walter, a spokeswoman for the Transportation Security Administration, said: "The pat-downs were put in place to address T.S.A.'s abilities to detect explosives at the checkpoint. That was a key recommendation by the 9/11 Commission."

With such a new procedure, she said, the agency expected complaints. So far, it has received about 250, with the numbers trending downward in recent weeks, she said. None of the complaints have been resolved so far nor have any penalties been imposed.But dozens of women are now publicly sharing their experiences of being examined in uncomfortable ways, suggesting that the complaints were more widespread than the official count.

As many as 15 percent of the estimated two million daily passengers are chosen for secondary screenings, including pat-downs, Ms. Von Walter said, and these do not count people who set off metal detectors when passing through security, who are automatically wanded.Under the previous rules, travelers were randomly selected for secondary screenings or taken aside if they set off metal detectors. Security would ask travelers to remove their shoes and coats, and then use a magnetometer to scan their bodies. Carry-ons were inspected by hand.

With the new rules, security personnel are given more latitude to select whomever they want for secondary screenings, whenever they want, and to conduct more intrusive pat-downs and more thorough examinations of carry-on bags. In both cases, travelers have the right to seek a private area, and women can request female inspectors.

A provision in the new rules - which says that a screener's "visual observation" of a passenger is enough to order a secondary screening - seems to single out women, something that many women searched attribute to a belief that bras are good places to conceal nonmetallic explosives.The provision states, "T.S.A. policy is that screeners are to use the back of the hand when screening sensitive body areas, which include the breasts (females only), genitals and buttocks."

At the Fort Lauderdale airport on Nov. 5, Ms. LuPone says she removed her shirt after vehemently protesting, revealing the thin, see-through camisole that she was wearing. Next, she was given a pat-down by a screener who, she said, "was all over me with her hands," including touching her groin area and breasts.

Ms. LuPone said she demanded an explanation. "We don't want another Russia to happen," she said one of the screeners told her.

Nancy Davis Kho, a financial data developer from Oakland, Calif., said, "They're totally overlooking the need to preserve a person's dignity." Ms. Kho said she was mortified at La Guardia Airport in New York on Sept. 28, when a female screener patted her down, "running her hands under bra straps and just about everywhere else," while other passengers gawked.

Lu Chekowsky, an advertising executive from Portland, Ore., said her cosmetics case set off the alarm at the airport there a couple of months ago. Since then, she says, she has been patted down so many times that she has taken to wearing baggy trousers, flip-flops and a big sweatshirt to make the procedure less onerous.

"Routinely, my breasts are being cupped, my behind is being felt," Ms. Chekowsky said. "And I feel I can't fight it. If I were to say anything, I picture myself being shipped off to Guantánamo." Male screeners can do the pat-downs when female screeners are not available, but female passengers have the option of waiting until a woman can be found.

Ms. Maurer, the executive from Washington, reluctantly agreed to a search by a male security officer when a woman was not available. After he gave her a full body pat-down, she said, "he lifted my shirt and looked down the back of my pants.''

"I said, 'I am really uncomfortable having you feel me up,' but I basically had no choice. It was either that or miss my flight."

Ms. Von Walter said that complaints made to the security agency about pat-downs declined to 11 in the second week of November from 45 the week that the policy went into effect, for a total of 248. She said it was "fair to assume there would be an increase in complaints, given the new procedures."

But Jen McSkimming, a manager with a domestic airline, said the numbers were "severely underreporting" the extent of the problem. She said she was recently at an industry meeting attended by a senior representative of the security agency who said, when the issue of pat-downs was raised, "Well, I only get about 15 complaints a week on this."

Ms. McSkimming said about half of the 30 people at the meeting were women and she asked the group how many women had had a bad experience with the new procedures. "Every single woman raised their hand,'' she said. "So I told him, 'Well, you'd better add 15 to this week's total.' "

Most of the women interviewed said they did not make formal complaints, most saying that they assumed it would be futile to do so. Ms. Maurer said she and some other women she had spoken to are wary of complaining in writing, both because of the presumed futility and from fear of being singled out when they travel in the future.

"There is this thing about putting your name out there," she said. "Am I going to end up on some kind of list?" The complaint procedure described on the federal agency's Web site, www.tsa.gov, says that passengers with "positive feedback or concerns" should speak with an airport screener supervisor or call a customer service hot line.

So far, the protests have been mostly rumblings, but Norman Siegel, a prominent New York civil rights lawyer, has been retained by Rhonda L. Gaynier, who said she recently decided to go public with her objections to routinely receiving "a breast exam in public" at airports. He has assembled a legal team to research grounds for a class-action lawsuit.

Some women say they have changed their travel clothing and made other adjustments to prepare for the checkpoint experience. Nancy Jackson, president of a global company in New York that sells interior finishes, recently bought a supply of white dress blouses because she is routinely requested to remove her suit jacket at the airport. She has also learned not to express her objections.

If you do, she said, "They really feel you up, and then check every section of your wallet and every item in your carry-on, including your makeup and toiletries; it's disgusting."

OTHER RELEVANT LINKS TO CONSIDER:

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/ (The web site for a really interesting radio program geared toward those who prefer hearing news not controlled by multi-national corporations)

http://lifeaftertheoilcrisis.com/ (This site is a little shocking and scary, and I would like people who visit to realize that while this site contains many, many true facts, it fails to acknowledge that there ARE many viable alternative sources of power currently in development. This site will scare the dickens out of you if you don't remember this -- but it will give you a whole new perspective on what we're really doing in Iraq, what's really up in terms of global terrorism, etc. Browse through this site as thoroughly as you can, and read this guy's information. It will open your eyes, I promise...after it scares the pee out of you.)

http://911review.org/ (Take a look at this one if you want to have your eyes pried wide open to a whole other take on 9/11.)

http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/ (This one might freak some out, of course, because it purports to have some very, very interesting and thought-provoking "facts" about 9/11. I'm including it just because it might make you think.)

http://www.911truth.org/ (Ditto for this one...)

http://www.americanfreepress.net/9-11/9-11.html (And this one...)