Airport screeners grope baby – now we’re safe

  • Share on Tumblr

This week’s TSA outrage comes to us courtesy of checkpoint screeners at the Kansas City International Airport.

After a test on a stroller set of an explosive detection alarm,  agents proceeded to pat down an infant last Saturday.

Jacob Jester snapped a photo and posted it on his Twitter account with the following message.

“Just saw #tsa agents patting down a little baby at @KCIAirport. Pretty sure that’s extreme.”

The photo quickly went viral.

“I took the picture because I wouldn’t want that to happen to my own son. Not because I was furious, not because I was irate, not because I was gettin’ ready to throw down at the airport, but basically because what I watched is something I wouldn’t want to take place to my own son,” Jester said in an interview with Kansas City TV station KY-3.

This is the third high profile incident involving airport screening agents performing invasive pat-downs in the last several weeks. In early April, a father videotaped an agent in New Orleans running her hands all over his visibly upset daughter. He says after the search, his daughter began crying, fearing she’d done something wrong. A few weeks later, former Miss USA Susie Castillo made a tearful video after agents touched her genitalia during a pat-down. She said she came away feeling violated.

Now we have an 8-month-old getting groped.

In a statement, the TSA said agents, who work for a private contractor but follow TSA protocol, followed proper procedures.

They always say that.

Which indicates perhaps the procedures should change.

The state of Texas has taken steps to do just that. Rep. David Simpson introduced two bills in March. One would make full-body scanners illegal in Texas and the other would make it a criminal offense to:

as part of a search performed to grant access to a publicly accessible building or form of transportation, intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly: (A) searches another person without probable cause to believe the person committed an offense; and (B) touches the anus, sexual organ, or breasts of the other person, including touching through clothing, or touches the other person in a manner that would be offensive to a reasonable person.

After nearly dying, both bills unanimously passed out committee on May 9 and will go before the full House in the near future.

Other states need to follow suit.

We can’t expect Washington D.C. to solve the problem. The Congress that created the TSA isn’t likely to offer up any viable solutions. Thomas Jefferson points us to the rightful remedy.

Nullify!

Opponents will continue to argue that TSA searches don’t violate the Fourth Amendment because Americans don’t enjoy a right to fly. By the same logic, Americans presumably don’t enjoy a right to drive either, so perhaps we should allow for searches before getting into our cars. We have a right to expect safe highways, don’t we? Or safe sidewalks for that matter. Is pedestrian screening in our future?

In fact, most proponents base their support of invasive TSA screenings on fear. Mary Stanek-Havron Moeller, a poster to the KY-3 TV website provides a vivid example.

“If anyone has a better solution to the problem of people carrying bombs onto an airplances, (sic) please post it, or better yet submit it to the TSA.  Terrorists are not afraid to die!!!!  They believe they go to heaven and being a human bomb is an honor for them.  You think they wouldn’t use a baby or small child?  You all have comments but no solutions.  If you were sitting next to the underwear bomber on Christmas Day 2011, you would be complaining that not enough was being done to protect your safety.  Well now that it is your (sic) complaining about that.  DRIVE!”

I’ll let Benjamin Franklin handle my response.

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

EDITOR’S NOTE:

HB1938, which would ban TSA scanners in Texas, passed out of committee on 05-09-11.  the Vote was 8-0, with 3 abstaining.

HB1937, which would ban TSA searches without probable cause (as per the 4th amendment), passed out of committee on 05-09-11. The vote was 8-0, with 1 abstaining.

Both bills are expected for a floor vote in the Texas house soon.

CLICK HERE to track all TSA-nullification bills around the country.

About Mike Maharrey

Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center. He proudly resides in the original home of the Principles of '98 - Kentucky. See his blog archive here and his article archive here. He also maintains the blog, Tenther Gleanings.

Enjoyed This Post?

We cannot succeed without your help, as we will never accept government grants or handouts. Please help us by investing in the Constitution and freedom today!

Enjoyed This Post?
4 comments
timmos
timmos

"That said, I have to point out that just because something isn't in the constitution doesn't mean it isn't a right."

The Ninth Amendment (Amendment IX) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, addresses rights of the people that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

Agreed.

RugPilot
RugPilot

Maybe if the prospective bombers were told that explosives are made from nitrates and the main source of nitrates is waste from pig farms, they would think twice. All those suicide/homicde bombers have found themselves elsewhere. They are part pig and Allah doesn't like that.

Jon M
Jon M

As far as the "right to drive," or the "right to safe highways," I would argue that no, we don't have a "right" to drive. It's not in Constitution--there's not even a "right" to ride a horse or drive a buggy--and we have to be licensed by the government, even though it's the state government(s), which by definition makes it a privilege; one that can also be suspended or revoked.

While I think TSA is a useless sloth of a government agency, that is doing anything but keeping us safe, I just wanted to bring the driving argument forth.

Really, we don't have a right to safe sidewalks either, because the only way for them to be truly safe would be for the government to keep them secure. Since the Supreme Court has ruled that police do not have the duty to protect us, we cannot expect that from the government. The "right" to safe sidewalks is one that we grant ourselves, through our Second Amendment rights.

Mike Maharrey
Mike Maharrey

I wasn't really arguing that we have a "right to drive" or fly for that matter, and yes, it is a privilege by definition (although I would argue that we have a right to freely travel). I was simply using the opponents' language. The point is that if they are going to remain logically consistent, then searching pedestrians would follow - and since just about anybody would protest sidewalk searches, my illustration makes its point. So it really wasn't meant as a literal examination of rights.

The real point is that the Fourth Amendment doesn't make exceptions for things that aren't rights, or privileges or whatever other label you care to put on an activity.

That said, I have to point out that just because something isn't in the constitution doesn't mean it isn't a right.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] she was groped at a checkpoint at the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport. A man captured a photo of an infant undergoing a search in Kansas City. And a pat-down in New Orleans left a 6-year-old girl in [...]

  2. [...] she was groped at a checkpoint at the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport. A man captured a photo of an infant undergoing a search in Kansas City. And a pat-down in New Orleans left a 6-year-old girl in [...]