I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official(ourlittlechatterboxes.com)
ourlittlechatterboxes.com
I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official
http://www.ourlittlechatterboxes.com/2010/11/tsa-sexual-assault.html
137 comments
I looked this up the other day and came across the following on TSA.gov:
"Even prior to the passage of ATSA and the Federalization of the screening work force, Federal courts upheld warrantless searches of carry-on luggage at airports. Courts characterize the routine administrative search conducted at a security checkpoint as a warrantless search, subject to the reasonableness requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Such a warrantless search, also known as an administrative search, is valid under the Fourth Amendment if it is "no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, " confined in good faith to that purpose," and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly. [See United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973)].
While the searches at the airport will be conducted by private screening companies, such searches will continue to be subject to the Fourth Amendment requirements of reasonableness because they are conducted at the instigation of the federal Government and under the authority of federal statutes and regulations governing air passenger screening." --http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/optout/spp_faqs.shtm (search for "amendment")
"Even prior to the passage of ATSA and the Federalization of the screening work force, Federal courts upheld warrantless searches of carry-on luggage at airports. Courts characterize the routine administrative search conducted at a security checkpoint as a warrantless search, subject to the reasonableness requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Such a warrantless search, also known as an administrative search, is valid under the Fourth Amendment if it is "no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, " confined in good faith to that purpose," and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly. [See United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973)].
While the searches at the airport will be conducted by private screening companies, such searches will continue to be subject to the Fourth Amendment requirements of reasonableness because they are conducted at the instigation of the federal Government and under the authority of federal statutes and regulations governing air passenger screening." --http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/optout/spp_faqs.shtm (search for "amendment")
and searches of you on the street can be avoided by electing not to leave your home.
The thing that sets this post apart from others of the same category is the fact that the author was not given a choice in the search. This is exactly what a lot of discussion around here has been about (though admittedly the opposite of the expected outcome). The fact that it was a pat down, not a pat down or a scan is new. In most situations, the TSA could claim the the pat down is a choice, but here that is obviously not possible.
As for the assault claims, I am not surprised. I can't imagine TSA agents always remember to explain exactly what is going to happen. Pat downs are invasive and uncomfortable, but unexpected invasion must be much worse.
As for the assault claims, I am not surprised. I can't imagine TSA agents always remember to explain exactly what is going to happen. Pat downs are invasive and uncomfortable, but unexpected invasion must be much worse.
>I can't imagine TSA agents always remember to explain exactly what is going to happen.
Flight attendants are required by law to run through a pre flight safety instructional for every flight - even though we have all heard it many times. Police officers are required to read you your miranda rights.
TSA agents should be very well versed in all options afforded passengers under the law and be very well capable of relaying that information to any passenger without being prompted.
If the flying public is expected to be treated like terrorists you better believe I expect TSA agents to know exactly what they are doing.
Flight attendants are required by law to run through a pre flight safety instructional for every flight - even though we have all heard it many times. Police officers are required to read you your miranda rights.
TSA agents should be very well versed in all options afforded passengers under the law and be very well capable of relaying that information to any passenger without being prompted.
If the flying public is expected to be treated like terrorists you better believe I expect TSA agents to know exactly what they are doing.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be expected to follow SOP, I am saying that I'm not surprised that it doesn't always happen. By no means should this be excused. People make mistakes. It just happens to be the case that this mistake is worse than others and may result in sexual assault charges.
>Police officers are required to read you your miranda rights.
No, they aren't. Police officers are required to read you your miranda rights in order for information from an interrogation to be admissible in court. But if they don't care about what you might say to them, there is no law that requires them to read you your rights. It isn't uncommon for rights not to be read in mass arrest situations, such as at protests.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning#Confusion_regar...
No, they aren't. Police officers are required to read you your miranda rights in order for information from an interrogation to be admissible in court. But if they don't care about what you might say to them, there is no law that requires them to read you your rights. It isn't uncommon for rights not to be read in mass arrest situations, such as at protests.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning#Confusion_regar...
Every day America looks a less attractive place to visit or do business with.
Two stories:
1) Last week I got a wedding invitation from my cousin in Connecticut (well, a "Save The Date" technically. That seems to be a purely American invention, but seems roughly comparable to a wedding invitation in my Canadian eyes). This was on the same day I found out about these new "enhanced" patdowns.
2) My dad loves NASCAR, and his birthday is in February, right around the running of the Daytona 500. For years, I've wanted to take him there for his birthday. It's a whole week of different races, and I'm sure he'd love it. It appears I've waited too long / didn't get the money in time.
Two scenarios where I'd really like to visit the States, mostly for my dad. With these new "security" measures in place, however, there is no way I'm going to subject myself to such an ordeal just for a vacation. It might not necessarily be the sexual assault some people claim, but if my only option is to be either photographed nude or have some agent grabbing my junk, I'd rather just stay home.
1) Last week I got a wedding invitation from my cousin in Connecticut (well, a "Save The Date" technically. That seems to be a purely American invention, but seems roughly comparable to a wedding invitation in my Canadian eyes). This was on the same day I found out about these new "enhanced" patdowns.
2) My dad loves NASCAR, and his birthday is in February, right around the running of the Daytona 500. For years, I've wanted to take him there for his birthday. It's a whole week of different races, and I'm sure he'd love it. It appears I've waited too long / didn't get the money in time.
Two scenarios where I'd really like to visit the States, mostly for my dad. With these new "security" measures in place, however, there is no way I'm going to subject myself to such an ordeal just for a vacation. It might not necessarily be the sexual assault some people claim, but if my only option is to be either photographed nude or have some agent grabbing my junk, I'd rather just stay home.
I hate to agree with you but I do. If I were a foreigner arriving at JFK I would be inclined to turn around and not come back.
I make it a point to thank every tourist I come across for visiting. I also thank Americans from other parts of the country for visiting NYC. Meeting all kinds of people from all kinds of far away places is part of the fun of living in NYC.
I make it a point to thank every tourist I come across for visiting. I also thank Americans from other parts of the country for visiting NYC. Meeting all kinds of people from all kinds of far away places is part of the fun of living in NYC.
Yes, America is off my list for the moment. I guess it's a luxury not everyone can enjoy. I'm starting to worry that my own country is moving in the same direction. It's not healthy that a government has so much control over it's people. They are there to serve the people, not the other way around.
Where have you people been living? Not in my America where people are groped, fondled, struck, shackled, beaten, stripped, locked up, and worse every day. And these are innocent people guilty of no crime. This has been going every day of this woman's life. Are you living in a bubble? Is this really the first time this woman has been patted down?
I've argued that the correct way to do airline safety is the way ElAl does it. The most salient argument against that is that the ElAl system will not scale. So let me get this straight, privacy stripping full body scanners and an army of ill-trained TSA agents is a more scalable solution?
The current situation is untenable. I am incredibly concerned by the latest round of rights and liberty infringing actions by the government in the name of "security". If it is not "security" it is "children". What remains to be seen is whether or not the current solution is scaleable in the face of tremendous public outcry.
The current situation is untenable. I am incredibly concerned by the latest round of rights and liberty infringing actions by the government in the name of "security". If it is not "security" it is "children". What remains to be seen is whether or not the current solution is scaleable in the face of tremendous public outcry.
It should also be noted, that when ElAl does decide to do a pat down as part of their security policy, it is not gentle. I know a couple people (men) who've gone through it, and even though they knew it was a possibility, they still came out of it quite shaken - it is the equivalent of a full-on civilian police search, and bears only a passing resemblance to what the TSA is doing.
The difference is, of course, the TSA is subjecting everyone who opts out of the back scatter machine to their pat-down, whereas ElAl does so only to those they find suspicious.
The difference is, of course, the TSA is subjecting everyone who opts out of the back scatter machine to their pat-down, whereas ElAl does so only to those they find suspicious.
Oh yes, oh yes indeed. My quarrel is not so much with invasive searching but rather with blanket invasive searching of all citizens. If according to specific rules and specific guidelines a trained agent and her superior were to determine there was due cause for further screening then so be it.
Abuse can be weeded out and consequent repercussions meted out by simple analytics on reports gathered on every 'enhanced' screening.
Abuse can be weeded out and consequent repercussions meted out by simple analytics on reports gathered on every 'enhanced' screening.
The El Al system also makes heavy use of profiling, which is politically untenable in the U.S., and agents who are smart/well-trained enough to make judgment calls on the ground. TSA contractors are currently paid so little that I doubt you're ever going to get much more than bottom of the barrel in terms of motivation, intelligence, and agreeableness.
Isn't this all profiling? The public is subject to taking off their shoes because the powers that be profiled a threat vector from the shoe bomber. Replace shoes with razor blades, liquids, underwear and now toner cartridges.
Since when did "profiling" become a dirty word? Perhaps when "racial" joined the party. I maintain that profiling is essential to ensuring our security when implemented sanely, rationally and with appropriate oversight.
How about UPS and FedEx not shipping from Yemen. The entire country! Isn't that collective punishment?
If we can not expect "agents who are smart/well-trained enough to make judgment calls" to implement security to know the good guys from the bad guys then we are well and truly fucked.
Since when did "profiling" become a dirty word? Perhaps when "racial" joined the party. I maintain that profiling is essential to ensuring our security when implemented sanely, rationally and with appropriate oversight.
How about UPS and FedEx not shipping from Yemen. The entire country! Isn't that collective punishment?
If we can not expect "agents who are smart/well-trained enough to make judgment calls" to implement security to know the good guys from the bad guys then we are well and truly fucked.
I'm flying cross country in December and fully intend to opt out of the naked scanner, even if it means the 'enhanced patdown'.
I liken it to Ali choosing jail over Vietnam, and other instances when people protested government coercion by intentionally choosing the worse alternative to what the govt wanted them to do.
Hopefully the national outrage gets the policy changed before then, but I'm preparing to sack up and do it nonetheless.
I liken it to Ali choosing jail over Vietnam, and other instances when people protested government coercion by intentionally choosing the worse alternative to what the govt wanted them to do.
Hopefully the national outrage gets the policy changed before then, but I'm preparing to sack up and do it nonetheless.
I associate this with the previous discussion about response to bullying in school. The argument then was, should we teach our children to withstand physical abuse and report it to authorities after the fact? Or should we teach them to respond immediately as it happens and loudly, physically if need be, protest?
In this case, the TSA agent obviously broke protocol. I can't see it as mandatory for the victom of the breach to stick to her part of the protocol by keeping still and silently enduring the abuse.
However, it is clear that her lack of immediate response was not a concious decision. I'm very familiar with the paralysis of mind and body that occurred. As a martial arts instructor, I see this happen a lot especially in the beginner's classes. With an opponent just holding your arm or making any kind of physical contact in a fashion you're not accustomed to, your mind can very easily go blank and you fail to move at all. A lot of self defense training is directed to just overcoming the paralysis induced by fear and/or shock.
It is clear that the author post-poned all reactions until after the fact. Perhaps from a legal standpoint this was the best course of action. But from a human standpoint, it is my view that the trauma incurred would have been far less damaging if she had reacted immediately to what was happening.
To get to my point: for anyone that want to explore your own reactions to similar situations, it is both very affordable and illuminating to try out a few self defense or martial arts classes. Read up on what is available in your area and just try it out.
With just a few classes, you can learn to react to abusive physical contact with a sharp, verbal NO!! instead of freezing into silent paralysis during the abuse and bearing the resulting trauma. You even react to verbal abuse or just plain criticism from other people in a different way if you practice martial arts. It is beneficial to everyday situations a lot less dramatic than in the post above.
In this case, the TSA agent obviously broke protocol. I can't see it as mandatory for the victom of the breach to stick to her part of the protocol by keeping still and silently enduring the abuse.
However, it is clear that her lack of immediate response was not a concious decision. I'm very familiar with the paralysis of mind and body that occurred. As a martial arts instructor, I see this happen a lot especially in the beginner's classes. With an opponent just holding your arm or making any kind of physical contact in a fashion you're not accustomed to, your mind can very easily go blank and you fail to move at all. A lot of self defense training is directed to just overcoming the paralysis induced by fear and/or shock.
It is clear that the author post-poned all reactions until after the fact. Perhaps from a legal standpoint this was the best course of action. But from a human standpoint, it is my view that the trauma incurred would have been far less damaging if she had reacted immediately to what was happening.
To get to my point: for anyone that want to explore your own reactions to similar situations, it is both very affordable and illuminating to try out a few self defense or martial arts classes. Read up on what is available in your area and just try it out.
With just a few classes, you can learn to react to abusive physical contact with a sharp, verbal NO!! instead of freezing into silent paralysis during the abuse and bearing the resulting trauma. You even react to verbal abuse or just plain criticism from other people in a different way if you practice martial arts. It is beneficial to everyday situations a lot less dramatic than in the post above.
The issue is that even if she did shout NO during this whole frisking business she might have caused much more trouble.
That might be. And it might have been worth her while (IANAL)
I've been watching these stories trickle by on HN for a few days now wondering if I should say what I'm about to say. I'm going to put up an opinion that I'm quite certain is going to be unpopular. At length, I think the potential karma burn is worth speaking out. If you choose to downvote me, please drop in a reasonable reply as well:
We ought not to call these incidents sexual assault. It sounds too much like hyperbole.
I freely acknowledge that they bear many (most?) of the characteristics of sexual assault, but there are many circumstances in life where we must suffer the same indignities which are not considered assault. A visit to the doctor for example. The situation and the intent of the "perpetrator" seem inexorably tied up in it.(1)
Consider how we talk about air travel already: "I got to the airport and was corralled and herded through metal gates. I was unconstitutionally interrogated by some TSA goon and then sexually assaulted at security, prodded into the cattle car and then held hostage for over an hour on the tarmac. When the flight finally took off, they fleeced us for every penny during the flight for snacks and even pillows! Its highway robbery I tell you."
One of the things in the above list is a disgusting violation of our basics rights, the rest are minor inconveniences by comparison. Could an outside observer tell which one?
I'm afraid that the seriousness will be lost in the other airport security theatrics, that it makes the victims sound like the crazy ones. I'm afraid that the terrorists not only won, but handed us our asses. Mostly I'm afraid of what might happen to my wife.
You see, when she was very young, she was sexually assaulted.(2) I'm genuinely afraid(3) of this befalling her, of what wound it might reopen. I don't want to hear Leno joke about how the TSA fondled his balls, or how maybe they should take us to dinner and a movie first. I just want this shit to stop. I'd rather take my chances on the bomb.
This is the part of a good criticism where the proposed alternative solution is supposed to go. I haven't got one. But the line of people, some who are genuinely hurt (like the author) and the many who say it with a half-smirk all calling it "sexual assault" isn't really working for me. I don't know what we should call whats going on but wrong.
(1) And to be perfectly fair, the willing consent of the "victim".
(2) The fact that I'm inclined to put "the real kind" right here is part of the problem I'm having with this whole thing. I don't want to be insensitive to the victims, but I just can't quite make it cohere.
(3) Not the "I'm afraid for the direction our country is taking" afraid, the kind where my chest hurts and I can't breathe right afraid.
Edit: I'm going to go ahead and drop this in while I've still got the edit. It seems I set up a bit of a lightning rod with the "doctor" analogy. I was not trying to argue that a TSA patdown == exam at the doctor. I was grasping for the most benign example I could think of where similar actions could take place, in order to establish the idea of a specturm (based on the intents of the actors, and the consent of the acted upon, together with circumstances) with sexual assault at one end and acceptable behavior on the other. I'm sorry if this was unclear and detracted from the argument.
We ought not to call these incidents sexual assault. It sounds too much like hyperbole.
I freely acknowledge that they bear many (most?) of the characteristics of sexual assault, but there are many circumstances in life where we must suffer the same indignities which are not considered assault. A visit to the doctor for example. The situation and the intent of the "perpetrator" seem inexorably tied up in it.(1)
Consider how we talk about air travel already: "I got to the airport and was corralled and herded through metal gates. I was unconstitutionally interrogated by some TSA goon and then sexually assaulted at security, prodded into the cattle car and then held hostage for over an hour on the tarmac. When the flight finally took off, they fleeced us for every penny during the flight for snacks and even pillows! Its highway robbery I tell you."
One of the things in the above list is a disgusting violation of our basics rights, the rest are minor inconveniences by comparison. Could an outside observer tell which one?
I'm afraid that the seriousness will be lost in the other airport security theatrics, that it makes the victims sound like the crazy ones. I'm afraid that the terrorists not only won, but handed us our asses. Mostly I'm afraid of what might happen to my wife.
You see, when she was very young, she was sexually assaulted.(2) I'm genuinely afraid(3) of this befalling her, of what wound it might reopen. I don't want to hear Leno joke about how the TSA fondled his balls, or how maybe they should take us to dinner and a movie first. I just want this shit to stop. I'd rather take my chances on the bomb.
This is the part of a good criticism where the proposed alternative solution is supposed to go. I haven't got one. But the line of people, some who are genuinely hurt (like the author) and the many who say it with a half-smirk all calling it "sexual assault" isn't really working for me. I don't know what we should call whats going on but wrong.
(1) And to be perfectly fair, the willing consent of the "victim".
(2) The fact that I'm inclined to put "the real kind" right here is part of the problem I'm having with this whole thing. I don't want to be insensitive to the victims, but I just can't quite make it cohere.
(3) Not the "I'm afraid for the direction our country is taking" afraid, the kind where my chest hurts and I can't breathe right afraid.
Edit: I'm going to go ahead and drop this in while I've still got the edit. It seems I set up a bit of a lightning rod with the "doctor" analogy. I was not trying to argue that a TSA patdown == exam at the doctor. I was grasping for the most benign example I could think of where similar actions could take place, in order to establish the idea of a specturm (based on the intents of the actors, and the consent of the acted upon, together with circumstances) with sexual assault at one end and acceptable behavior on the other. I'm sorry if this was unclear and detracted from the argument.
>>but there are many circumstances in life where we must suffer the same indignities which are not considered assault. A visit to the doctor for example.
This analogy makes very little sense.
The doctor cannot stop me from visiting a different doctor (who may not insist on the same tests) and the doctor cannot compel me to cancel a trip across the Atlantic if I refuse to submit to the tests. The government can.
The doctor has to convince the patient that the test is necessary. The TSA agent can ignore any evidence of the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of patdowns and doesn't need to obtain your consent.
This analogy makes very little sense.
The doctor cannot stop me from visiting a different doctor (who may not insist on the same tests) and the doctor cannot compel me to cancel a trip across the Atlantic if I refuse to submit to the tests. The government can.
The doctor has to convince the patient that the test is necessary. The TSA agent can ignore any evidence of the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of patdowns and doesn't need to obtain your consent.
"The doctor cannot compel me to cancel a trip across the Atlantic if I refuse to submit to the tests"
I'd suggest that failing to discover a fatal disease would be slightly worse than failing to travel somewhere.
What you mean to say is that it's OK for a doctor to do it because in that case the recipient believes he is doing it for a good reason. If everyone going through an airport fully believed that these checks are an efficient way to ensure our safety in the air, far less people would have a problem.
I'd suggest that failing to discover a fatal disease would be slightly worse than failing to travel somewhere.
What you mean to say is that it's OK for a doctor to do it because in that case the recipient believes he is doing it for a good reason. If everyone going through an airport fully believed that these checks are an efficient way to ensure our safety in the air, far less people would have a problem.
I think the problem is that the 'pat down' is the most ineffective security measure used in the airport. The real reason for the pat down is actually to find drugs concealed on a persons body.
Why on earth do they believe they'll find a razor blade on a persons body? They don't, because they're not looking for weapons because every real weapon known to man is detectable from a metal detector, and the majority of improvised weapons still use metal detectable parts.
Considering I've walked through a metal detector with literally a fistful of change and it hasn't gone off, I question the usability of all airport screening. I frequently have like $10 in small change on me.
Why on earth do they believe they'll find a razor blade on a persons body? They don't, because they're not looking for weapons because every real weapon known to man is detectable from a metal detector, and the majority of improvised weapons still use metal detectable parts.
Considering I've walked through a metal detector with literally a fistful of change and it hasn't gone off, I question the usability of all airport screening. I frequently have like $10 in small change on me.
because every real weapon known to man is detectable from a metal detector, and the majority of improvised weapons still use metal detectable parts.
Lets not get hyperbolic. I found a real weapon with less metal than my jeans in about 2 minutes with google.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/isotope/492829645/
(Presumably a terrorist could do it with no metal, but a prisoner has limitations on materials available.)
Lets not get hyperbolic. I found a real weapon with less metal than my jeans in about 2 minutes with google.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/isotope/492829645/
(Presumably a terrorist could do it with no metal, but a prisoner has limitations on materials available.)
The right type of wood can also make for quite an effective weapon, especially in the right hands.
I'd say most people would be far less afraid of someone with a wooden weapon than someone with a steel knife, when a wooden weapon would be far more harmful.
A wooden mallet with tapered ends could easily crack a skull or break joints and limbs if used properly and would be easily concealable compared to a high density knife blade.
Considering that a war hammer is still likely the most dangerous weapon to an armored soldier today, there are worlds of weapons that are not routinely used or thought of that could be deadly in the right circumstances.
A wooden mallet with tapered ends could easily crack a skull or break joints and limbs if used properly and would be easily concealable compared to a high density knife blade.
Considering that a war hammer is still likely the most dangerous weapon to an armored soldier today, there are worlds of weapons that are not routinely used or thought of that could be deadly in the right circumstances.
It doesn't even need tapered ends, as long as it's sturdy.
Heck, a well-trained person's hands can be quite deadly to someone not wearing armor... and if you know what you're doing, armor won't stop you from ripping someone's arm apart and spiking them into the ground with their own weight + that of the armor -- and yours, if you're feeling particularly aggressive :)
Heck, a well-trained person's hands can be quite deadly to someone not wearing armor... and if you know what you're doing, armor won't stop you from ripping someone's arm apart and spiking them into the ground with their own weight + that of the armor -- and yours, if you're feeling particularly aggressive :)
> I'd suggest that failing to discover a fatal disease would be slightly worse than failing to travel somewhere.
That's not the point. The point is choice. If I don't like one doctor, I can go to another. If I live in the USA and don't like the TSA, I'm fucked.
That's not the point. The point is choice. If I don't like one doctor, I can go to another. If I live in the USA and don't like the TSA, I'm fucked.
You can chose a different TSA agent. Going to another doctor won't change the fact that, to diagnose certain problems, he/she may need to touch your testicals.
However many people, especially men, do not allow embarrassing and painful tests done to them unless they're scared. They literally choose increased chance of death over those invasive exams.
I feel people should have the same right at the airline gate (aka flights w/o gropesearch/poronoscans vs flights with being offered)
I feel people should have the same right at the airline gate (aka flights w/o gropesearch/poronoscans vs flights with being offered)
* If everyone going through an airport fully believed that these checks are an efficient way to ensure our safety in the air, far less people would have a problem.*
Given that the facts say otherwise, I suspect that this is going to end up being a pretty hard sell.
Given that the facts say otherwise, I suspect that this is going to end up being a pretty hard sell.
Maybe the following example is better (maybe I'm arguing more 'state of mind' than the point the OP's post was trying to make, I'm not 100% sure).
Let's say a doctor performs an examination of the genitalia on a patient, without medical necessity. Let's say she does it without sexual intent, for example because she is still in training and wants to practice more on genital examinations (this may not make any medical sense, it's just the example) Let's also assume that we know for sure she had no sexual intent (eliminate mundane evidence matters). She convinces the patient the examination is necessary and he agrees to it. Only later he finds out the examination wasn't out of medical necessity. Is this sexual assault?
I'd argue no, and I'm quite sure the law is on my side (although I don't know how to qualify it in common law terms, at first I thought the mens rea was missing but a cursory web search seems to indicate that this is related to the 'consent' part of the assault charge, and not so much the 'sexual intention'. The literature doesn't seem to agree though).
Let's say a doctor performs an examination of the genitalia on a patient, without medical necessity. Let's say she does it without sexual intent, for example because she is still in training and wants to practice more on genital examinations (this may not make any medical sense, it's just the example) Let's also assume that we know for sure she had no sexual intent (eliminate mundane evidence matters). She convinces the patient the examination is necessary and he agrees to it. Only later he finds out the examination wasn't out of medical necessity. Is this sexual assault?
I'd argue no, and I'm quite sure the law is on my side (although I don't know how to qualify it in common law terms, at first I thought the mens rea was missing but a cursory web search seems to indicate that this is related to the 'consent' part of the assault charge, and not so much the 'sexual intention'. The literature doesn't seem to agree though).
Consent is a large part of the equation with your doctor analogy. If I'm going to the doctor for an issue pertaining to, or in the area of, my genitalia, I'm walking into that examination knowing where it will go.
If I'm having pain in a testicle, I know that the doctor is going to touch my genitalia. If I'm having pain in my throat, however, I can't imagine a circumstance where a doctor could convince me that he or she needs to examine my genitalia. If the doctor forces the issue, or performs the exam without my knowledge or consent (anesthesia, for example), I'm feel like I'd be able to argue that I was sexually assaulted. The reason is that an exam of that type wouldn't be reasonably expected based on my symptoms. If a doctor had reason to perform the exam, then a) I'd most likely be informed, and b) it would no longer meet your "without medical necessity" requirement.
Also, I really doubt many doctors are in medicine to be able to fondle their patients. I know it's a common joke that men go into gynecology to be able to grope women, but the level of commitment required to get through medical school in order to do it is huge compared to the expected non-medical "benefits." I think there was an AMA on reddit a while ago, and I know I've read articles about this before, which said that you sort of get sick of seeing so much vagina. It's like working at a mint, the sort of person who sees the newly minted cash as cash and not "just the product" after their first week is the sort of person that doesn't keep their job long.
The same can't be said of the TSA. I don't know how apocryphal the references are, since I'm not American, but reddit has me believing that TSA screeners have roughly the same qualifications as the average McDonald's employee. You certainly don't need a college degree to get the job. This leaves open the possibility of people taking the job mainly for sexual satisfaction. Again I'm reference apocryphal reddit anecdotes, but there was a post recently about a guy whose whole strategy for getting through security was to stand directly behind the hottest girls in line, because they tended to be "randomly" pulled into the scan-or-grope line.
If I'm having pain in a testicle, I know that the doctor is going to touch my genitalia. If I'm having pain in my throat, however, I can't imagine a circumstance where a doctor could convince me that he or she needs to examine my genitalia. If the doctor forces the issue, or performs the exam without my knowledge or consent (anesthesia, for example), I'm feel like I'd be able to argue that I was sexually assaulted. The reason is that an exam of that type wouldn't be reasonably expected based on my symptoms. If a doctor had reason to perform the exam, then a) I'd most likely be informed, and b) it would no longer meet your "without medical necessity" requirement.
Also, I really doubt many doctors are in medicine to be able to fondle their patients. I know it's a common joke that men go into gynecology to be able to grope women, but the level of commitment required to get through medical school in order to do it is huge compared to the expected non-medical "benefits." I think there was an AMA on reddit a while ago, and I know I've read articles about this before, which said that you sort of get sick of seeing so much vagina. It's like working at a mint, the sort of person who sees the newly minted cash as cash and not "just the product" after their first week is the sort of person that doesn't keep their job long.
The same can't be said of the TSA. I don't know how apocryphal the references are, since I'm not American, but reddit has me believing that TSA screeners have roughly the same qualifications as the average McDonald's employee. You certainly don't need a college degree to get the job. This leaves open the possibility of people taking the job mainly for sexual satisfaction. Again I'm reference apocryphal reddit anecdotes, but there was a post recently about a guy whose whole strategy for getting through security was to stand directly behind the hottest girls in line, because they tended to be "randomly" pulled into the scan-or-grope line.
"Also, I really doubt many doctors are in medicine to be able to fondle their patients."
Just to be clear, and I'm not saying you said that I said that (uh...), I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of doctors are not in the profession for this reason (a reasonably large part of my family and friends are doctors, all of them fine professionals with nothing but the best intentions in mind). So just to make clear that I'm not hammering on doctors here :)
That said, OK let's take away the consent. Let's say you're under anesthesia for removing your sinuses and the doctor pulls up the blanket and performs a genital exam. I still hold that this is not sexual assault.
(Note that this is not a hypothetical example. It is fairly common practice in Dutch hospitals for interns to practice gynecological exams on women on the surgery table, even without these women knowing. 4 or 5 students literally line up for this practice. There was a minor fuss about it a few years ago, maybe standards have been changed since then. The references I can find about it date from 2005-2006 and are all in Dutch. The doctors back then thought it was normal and nothing to be up in arms about. I have no reason to believe doctors in other countries have different methods; after all, otherwise where are these students going to practice? ).
Just to be clear, and I'm not saying you said that I said that (uh...), I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of doctors are not in the profession for this reason (a reasonably large part of my family and friends are doctors, all of them fine professionals with nothing but the best intentions in mind). So just to make clear that I'm not hammering on doctors here :)
That said, OK let's take away the consent. Let's say you're under anesthesia for removing your sinuses and the doctor pulls up the blanket and performs a genital exam. I still hold that this is not sexual assault.
(Note that this is not a hypothetical example. It is fairly common practice in Dutch hospitals for interns to practice gynecological exams on women on the surgery table, even without these women knowing. 4 or 5 students literally line up for this practice. There was a minor fuss about it a few years ago, maybe standards have been changed since then. The references I can find about it date from 2005-2006 and are all in Dutch. The doctors back then thought it was normal and nothing to be up in arms about. I have no reason to believe doctors in other countries have different methods; after all, otherwise where are these students going to practice? ).
Just to be clear, and I'm not saying you said that I said that (uh...), I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of doctors are not in the profession for this reason
Sorry, I didn't intend to imply you said anything of the kind. It was meant to be a segue into "molesters have a new career path" and contrast this with doctors in general, not to put words in your mouth. Reading it now, I definitely see that I could have worded it better.
Regarding your later point, though, those practices aren't ok with me. When I was a teenager, I had some issues that I had to see a urologist about, and he asked me a couple times if he could check my prostate. I refused every time because I was uncomfortable with the procedure (yes, medically I probably should have, but that didn't factor for my 15-year-old-brain). Whether or not its sexual assault, or even assault at all, doesn't really matter. What matters is your perception, and what you would be ok with someone doing to you.
I've got a touch of RSI in my right hand. There is a very real possibility that somewhere in the next few decades I may need surgery for it, since I'm a programmer and arm/wrist abuse is pretty much par for the course. If I went for that surgery and was told "oh, and while I've got you under, I'm going to perform a prostate exam on you" then I'd definitely be looking for another doctor.
Everyone needs to have control over their own body, and there are limits to what we should have to endure. Having to choose between having nude photos taken of you, or having your genitals groped in order to travel around the country seems to be over the line of what I, and apparently many others, would deem acceptable.
I will not enter the United States because of this.
Sorry, I didn't intend to imply you said anything of the kind. It was meant to be a segue into "molesters have a new career path" and contrast this with doctors in general, not to put words in your mouth. Reading it now, I definitely see that I could have worded it better.
Regarding your later point, though, those practices aren't ok with me. When I was a teenager, I had some issues that I had to see a urologist about, and he asked me a couple times if he could check my prostate. I refused every time because I was uncomfortable with the procedure (yes, medically I probably should have, but that didn't factor for my 15-year-old-brain). Whether or not its sexual assault, or even assault at all, doesn't really matter. What matters is your perception, and what you would be ok with someone doing to you.
I've got a touch of RSI in my right hand. There is a very real possibility that somewhere in the next few decades I may need surgery for it, since I'm a programmer and arm/wrist abuse is pretty much par for the course. If I went for that surgery and was told "oh, and while I've got you under, I'm going to perform a prostate exam on you" then I'd definitely be looking for another doctor.
Everyone needs to have control over their own body, and there are limits to what we should have to endure. Having to choose between having nude photos taken of you, or having your genitals groped in order to travel around the country seems to be over the line of what I, and apparently many others, would deem acceptable.
I will not enter the United States because of this.
I would definitely have a problem with this.
I'd argue that they have no more right to do a gynecological exam on a patient under anesthesia than they do to do any other procedure completely unrelated to the primary one. Absurd: could you imagine if you were getting your tonsils out and the doctor just decided to do an unwarranted prostate exam? Or perform liposuction as an added bonus. Or amputate a limb? All we're talking about is degrees of the same thing (being subjected to procedures that you have no chance of declining)- where do we draw the line once we go there at all?
I'd argue that they have no more right to do a gynecological exam on a patient under anesthesia than they do to do any other procedure completely unrelated to the primary one. Absurd: could you imagine if you were getting your tonsils out and the doctor just decided to do an unwarranted prostate exam? Or perform liposuction as an added bonus. Or amputate a limb? All we're talking about is degrees of the same thing (being subjected to procedures that you have no chance of declining)- where do we draw the line once we go there at all?
Oh I have a problem with this, too, don't get me wrong. What I was saying is that I find it hard to qualify as 'sexual assault'. In the case of amputating a leg against necessity or your will, as a regular 'assault', probably; it's the 'sexual' part that I think doesn't apply.
Still, in the case of the prostate exam, I'm not sure there is a criminal legal remedy against it. It's not assault, it's not sexual assault, at best it's a breach of patient-doctor confidence. A civil case, to the best of my knowledge. What kind of 'damage' are you going to claim? Statutory damages (for those in countries where these exist) are not going to help because if it can't be qualified under a statute, there's not going to be much 'statutory damage' either. Mental anguish? Maybe. It's a tough sell to most courts in most of the world though.
Doctors may have professional codes of conduct, maybe it's regulated in there, but doctors here in the Netherlands have those too - many of them, being a very regulated country; yet still for years these involuntary examinations were done, without the women knowing even. I see no reason to believe that this situation would be different in every other country of the world; in other words, if it happens in the Netherlands, I would find it logical that the same things happen in other countries. Not all other countries, just some.
Still, in the case of the prostate exam, I'm not sure there is a criminal legal remedy against it. It's not assault, it's not sexual assault, at best it's a breach of patient-doctor confidence. A civil case, to the best of my knowledge. What kind of 'damage' are you going to claim? Statutory damages (for those in countries where these exist) are not going to help because if it can't be qualified under a statute, there's not going to be much 'statutory damage' either. Mental anguish? Maybe. It's a tough sell to most courts in most of the world though.
Doctors may have professional codes of conduct, maybe it's regulated in there, but doctors here in the Netherlands have those too - many of them, being a very regulated country; yet still for years these involuntary examinations were done, without the women knowing even. I see no reason to believe that this situation would be different in every other country of the world; in other words, if it happens in the Netherlands, I would find it logical that the same things happen in other countries. Not all other countries, just some.
Maybe the first question is whether it's assault. It's assault in Canada, at least, because the doctor was abusing his authority in order to touch you. This removes any possibility of consent.
I'm not sure. Why do you think this would be assault? I'm not familiar with Canadian law, but article 265(1)(a) defines assault as without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly; I'm not sure that performing a physical examination under false pretenses is 'applying force'.
There may be Canadian case law clarifying this, I don't know, but prima facie it doesn't seem to me that your position is correct.
Note that other legal systems have problems with doing things under false pretenses. A woman claimed rape because her husband's brother slid into bed with her and initiated sex, in which she went along. The guy didn't disclose explicitly that he wasn't the woman's husband. When she found out she felt (justifiably) violated. Yet the guy was acquitted because there was no statute on getting sexual favors under false pretenses (there is now by the way, as a result of this case).
There may be Canadian case law clarifying this, I don't know, but prima facie it doesn't seem to me that your position is correct.
Note that other legal systems have problems with doing things under false pretenses. A woman claimed rape because her husband's brother slid into bed with her and initiated sex, in which she went along. The guy didn't disclose explicitly that he wasn't the woman's husband. When she found out she felt (justifiably) violated. Yet the guy was acquitted because there was no statute on getting sexual favors under false pretenses (there is now by the way, as a result of this case).
You quoted the first paragraph of the section on assault. The definition of "consent" as used in the first paragraph is given in the third paragraph. It also covers the case of false pretenses:
(3) For the purposes of this section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of
(a) the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;
(b) threats or fear of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;
(c) fraud; or
(d) the exercise of authority.
I was referring to part d. Part d would also apply to TSA officials as far as I know, but if they were on Canadian soil they'd probably get some special exemption. Also, I don't believe they technically do the searches on Canadian soil. Airports are weird.
(3) For the purposes of this section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of
(a) the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;
(b) threats or fear of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;
(c) fraud; or
(d) the exercise of authority.
I was referring to part d. Part d would also apply to TSA officials as far as I know, but if they were on Canadian soil they'd probably get some special exemption. Also, I don't believe they technically do the searches on Canadian soil. Airports are weird.
Yes, but my point wasn't so much that there wasn't consent (well I admit that I was going on a tangent in that direction in my last paragraph...) but that there is no 'force' being applied.
There is. That is the assault law. Unless you're suggesting that grabbing someone's breasts is never sexual assault...
Force means something a bit looser than you probably think it does. A light tap can be considered assault, let alone grabbing and poking.
Force means something a bit looser than you probably think it does. A light tap can be considered assault, let alone grabbing and poking.
The doctor has to convince the patient that the test is necessary. The TSA agent can ignore any evidence of the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of patdowns and doesn't need to obtain your consent.
And that's the critical difference here.
What the doctor does is WITH your consent, and you have a choice in the matter -- plus it's actually truly for your own good.
What the TSA does is NOT with your consent, you don't have a choice in the matter (subject of the TSA's next porn video, or sexual molestation), and it's NOT for your own good, since there's no conceivable way that it will actually improve airline safety, given that it won't have any affect on any serious terrorist attacks anyway.
And that's the critical difference here.
What the doctor does is WITH your consent, and you have a choice in the matter -- plus it's actually truly for your own good.
What the TSA does is NOT with your consent, you don't have a choice in the matter (subject of the TSA's next porn video, or sexual molestation), and it's NOT for your own good, since there's no conceivable way that it will actually improve airline safety, given that it won't have any affect on any serious terrorist attacks anyway.
[deleted]
We ought not to call these incidents sexual assault. It
sounds too much like hyperbole.
This bit is completely inexplicable:
I had indeed been sexually assaulted because she did not
follow the SOP (standard operating procedure) for the new
search.
During our first conversation, the TSA acting manager of
the shift told me that the TSA agent who sexually
assaulted me was supposed to inform me about the new
search procedure and tell me when and where she was going
to touch me
This is a pretty sick response and all too common.
If you did not consent to be being touched in a certain way by another human being, no matter the circumstance, they have no right to do so. That is an assault on your person.
She was not informed that this person was going to do the things they did to her. She was molested in public by a figure in a position of (supposed) authority. I cannot imagine what she must felt. However, I cannot deny that she was a victim!
I think it's disgusting that you would dismiss this as "not a real crime" for reasons I cannot even begin to understand. Your logic is incredibly weak. There was a crime here and just because it wasn't violent doesn't make it any less criminal.
After reading about several of these cases, I know for a fact that I will not fly in the United States ever. Neither will my wife or anyone in my family. And if I can help it, neither will anyone I know. "Enhanced pat-down," is a shockingly sick euphemism for "molestation policy." Let's call it what it is and demand that this be stopped before the idea catches on in other, still free, countries.
If you did not consent to be being touched in a certain way by another human being, no matter the circumstance, they have no right to do so. That is an assault on your person.
She was not informed that this person was going to do the things they did to her. She was molested in public by a figure in a position of (supposed) authority. I cannot imagine what she must felt. However, I cannot deny that she was a victim!
I think it's disgusting that you would dismiss this as "not a real crime" for reasons I cannot even begin to understand. Your logic is incredibly weak. There was a crime here and just because it wasn't violent doesn't make it any less criminal.
After reading about several of these cases, I know for a fact that I will not fly in the United States ever. Neither will my wife or anyone in my family. And if I can help it, neither will anyone I know. "Enhanced pat-down," is a shockingly sick euphemism for "molestation policy." Let's call it what it is and demand that this be stopped before the idea catches on in other, still free, countries.
that you would dismiss this as "not a real crime"
"Enhanced pat-down," is a shockingly sick euphemism for
"molestation policy."
The problem is not that people are being touched in inappropriate ways. The problem is not that people are being touched in inappropriate ways without them being told about it upfront. The problem is that the legislation to allow this touching was passed in the first place, that the regulations depending on that regulation were put in place and that people actually seems to think this does anything to remove any threat. That is the problem.
Totally agree with your security theatre point, even all of this does nothing.
However, to keep in mind with the police, they must have a reasonable suspicion in order to search your person. They cannot simply stop everyone walking down the street and frisk them. And pretty much anything that the police do to you can be challenged in a court (obv whether you win is another thing, but the recourse is there). I think drawing parallels to (traditional) law enforcement practices is misleading.
However, to keep in mind with the police, they must have a reasonable suspicion in order to search your person. They cannot simply stop everyone walking down the street and frisk them. And pretty much anything that the police do to you can be challenged in a court (obv whether you win is another thing, but the recourse is there). I think drawing parallels to (traditional) law enforcement practices is misleading.
While I agree with the police officer example I do feel that is different. If I am getting arrested or am in a position where I have already broken a law then by all means I should be frisked in a way that allows them to verify I have nothing that could do any bodily harm to them. I have very limited rights when I am under arrest.
It is the pre-emptive before anything happens TSA security theatre that makes it worse. By traveling I have not broken ANY laws yet I am still being subjected to a search that is extremely invasive and could be considered sexual assault.
It is as if I was a bouncer (instated by the government) and each time you wanted to go to a bar or club I would need to frisk you in a way that made you highly uncomfortable and in any work place setting is considered sexual assault. People wouldn't stand for it. That is the case here as well, people won't stand for it.
It is the pre-emptive before anything happens TSA security theatre that makes it worse. By traveling I have not broken ANY laws yet I am still being subjected to a search that is extremely invasive and could be considered sexual assault.
It is as if I was a bouncer (instated by the government) and each time you wanted to go to a bar or club I would need to frisk you in a way that made you highly uncomfortable and in any work place setting is considered sexual assault. People wouldn't stand for it. That is the case here as well, people won't stand for it.
I do not dismiss it as 'not a real crime'. I dismiss it as sexual assault and I wish to strongly argue for not polluting the meaning of that crime with instances of someone touching you inappropriately.
Right there you deny, and then affirm my point. You don't think there was a crime, just that she was touched inappropriately.
I expect any police officer frisking me to touch my balls. He is putting himself in danger if he doesn't search thoroughly. That isn't considered molestation and if that isn't, then neither is this.
The police officer still requires just cause and must inform me of their intent. They cannot simply by virtue of being a police officer molest anyone they please. They have no right to apprehend someone and molest them. That would be a sexual assault crime as well.
You are using dramatic words to make strong accusations to try and make a point that should be made in an entirely different way. These kinds of overly dramatic arguments are easy to dismiss and unfortunately, the real arguments that argue for the same solution will silently be dismissed along with them.
I'm afraid that they will only be silently dismissed by those who are apologetic to perpetrators.
The problem is not that people are being touched in inappropriate ways. The problem is not that people are being touched in inappropriate ways without them being told about it upfront. The problem is that the legislation to allow this touching was passed in the first place, that the regulations depending on that regulation were put in place and that people actually seems to think this does anything to remove any threat. That is the problem.
The victim will not likely feel any less violated or assaulted because you choose to call it, "inappropriate touching." That is something kids do when they don't know any better. The problem in this case was that this woman was molested. Whether that was because the TSA agent made a mistake, was improperly trained, or was a sexual predator remains a question for the courts to hear and determine. Either way the charge is the same and the victim is no less hurt by what happened.
Calling it anything less is dismissing the crime. I'm not misappropriating the term with hyperbole. You're simply down-playing it. If we do not call it what it is, we choose to ignore it or apologize for it. Either way, it's a sign to me that you do not think there was a victim here and that this woman is not justified to feel the way she does as a victim of a crime.
At least we do agree on one thing: the greater crime here is the policy itself.
I simply hope that cases like this DO go to court so that the justice system can rule the policy unenforceable and compel the TSA to remove it.
Right there you deny, and then affirm my point. You don't think there was a crime, just that she was touched inappropriately.
I expect any police officer frisking me to touch my balls. He is putting himself in danger if he doesn't search thoroughly. That isn't considered molestation and if that isn't, then neither is this.
The police officer still requires just cause and must inform me of their intent. They cannot simply by virtue of being a police officer molest anyone they please. They have no right to apprehend someone and molest them. That would be a sexual assault crime as well.
You are using dramatic words to make strong accusations to try and make a point that should be made in an entirely different way. These kinds of overly dramatic arguments are easy to dismiss and unfortunately, the real arguments that argue for the same solution will silently be dismissed along with them.
I'm afraid that they will only be silently dismissed by those who are apologetic to perpetrators.
The problem is not that people are being touched in inappropriate ways. The problem is not that people are being touched in inappropriate ways without them being told about it upfront. The problem is that the legislation to allow this touching was passed in the first place, that the regulations depending on that regulation were put in place and that people actually seems to think this does anything to remove any threat. That is the problem.
The victim will not likely feel any less violated or assaulted because you choose to call it, "inappropriate touching." That is something kids do when they don't know any better. The problem in this case was that this woman was molested. Whether that was because the TSA agent made a mistake, was improperly trained, or was a sexual predator remains a question for the courts to hear and determine. Either way the charge is the same and the victim is no less hurt by what happened.
Calling it anything less is dismissing the crime. I'm not misappropriating the term with hyperbole. You're simply down-playing it. If we do not call it what it is, we choose to ignore it or apologize for it. Either way, it's a sign to me that you do not think there was a victim here and that this woman is not justified to feel the way she does as a victim of a crime.
At least we do agree on one thing: the greater crime here is the policy itself.
I simply hope that cases like this DO go to court so that the justice system can rule the policy unenforceable and compel the TSA to remove it.
You don't think there was a crime, just that she was touched inappropriately.
Sexual assault may include rape, forced vaginal, anal or oral penetration, forced sexual intercourse, inappropriate touching, forced kissing, child sexual abuse, or the torture of the victim in a sexual manner.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_assault
It is certainly up to the courts of the juristiction to determine whether "inappropriate touching" consitutes a part of what is called, "sexual assault."
So you see, I am not in fact mixing terms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_assault
It is certainly up to the courts of the juristiction to determine whether "inappropriate touching" consitutes a part of what is called, "sexual assault."
So you see, I am not in fact mixing terms.
I'm not sure why it is difficult to understand that touching someone for search is not a sexual act simply because it involves touching sexual organs. One must generally intend to commit a crime to be guilty of one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
These searches sure as fuck aren't being preformed accidentally.
"There was a crime here and just because it wasn't violent doesn't make it any less criminal."
Actually by definition there wasn't. What is a crime is defined by law (in the broad sense of the word). This woman was authorized by law to perform this search. Ergo, it's not a crime. (the fact that she wasn't informed doesn't change that).
A prison guard beating an inmate who is rioting with a night stick doesn't perform 'assault' on that inmate either. Again, because the guard is authorized to do so by law (within the limits thereof, obviously).
Now you may hold the opinion that in these cases, the touching is unlawful. It's within your rights to do so. It still doesn't make it so. Saying it is dilutes the meaning of the words used, words that we as a society have spend decades on refining to be as clear as possible. Then using there words in a different meaning to give your argument (opinion) more weight is not intellectually honest debate. That's what the OP was objecting to.
Actually by definition there wasn't. What is a crime is defined by law (in the broad sense of the word). This woman was authorized by law to perform this search. Ergo, it's not a crime. (the fact that she wasn't informed doesn't change that).
A prison guard beating an inmate who is rioting with a night stick doesn't perform 'assault' on that inmate either. Again, because the guard is authorized to do so by law (within the limits thereof, obviously).
Now you may hold the opinion that in these cases, the touching is unlawful. It's within your rights to do so. It still doesn't make it so. Saying it is dilutes the meaning of the words used, words that we as a society have spend decades on refining to be as clear as possible. Then using there words in a different meaning to give your argument (opinion) more weight is not intellectually honest debate. That's what the OP was objecting to.
Does a visit to the gynecologist count as sexual assault. Of course not, but why? Because, implicitly or explicitly, the patient has consented to being examined.
Do you have a particular difficulty with grasping 'consent' in the context the author narrates?
edit to clarify: Of course, as far as the law is concerned, there are other factors that constitute "sexual assault" as an offense, but those can't be accurately and definitively established without the proper procedure. And even if what's going on here doesn't hold in a court of law, I think it's safe to say we all understand that we're implicitly trusting the author's words on the subject, when establishing whether consent was in fact not provided.
Do you have a particular difficulty with grasping 'consent' in the context the author narrates?
edit to clarify: Of course, as far as the law is concerned, there are other factors that constitute "sexual assault" as an offense, but those can't be accurately and definitively established without the proper procedure. And even if what's going on here doesn't hold in a court of law, I think it's safe to say we all understand that we're implicitly trusting the author's words on the subject, when establishing whether consent was in fact not provided.
> Does a visit to the gynecologist count as sexual assault. Of course not, but why? Because, implicitly or explicitly, the patient has consented to being examined.
In accordance with a medically necessitated test. If a gynecologist is sticking a finger in a womans vagina, whether s/he has implicit or explicit consent is sexual assault if performed under misinformation.
If a doctor gropes my testicles or sticks a finger up my ass without medical justification for doing so, it is sexual asault.
Given that the 'pat down' is the least effective screening procedure in an airport, it has very little reason to be performed for the reasons given. The real reason the pat downs are performed is to find drugs concealed on the body.
Why is a pat down used, when a dog can more easily be used with less harassment of passengers and more verifiability in courts. Bloodhound evidence is permissible in all courts (IIRC) generally without any question because of the safe guards. The bloodhound will detect if you have an illicit substance on you, even if it is in an unverifiable quantity by an officer. If you aren't actually carrying, you won't be arrested as you're not prosecutable. So why isn't this used? Mostly because a bloodhound isn't intimidating to people who know they won't be busted.
Airline security is designed to add pressure, to make people feel nervous because people with a reason to be nervous simply walking past an officer will be panicking. This allows them to catch all the one-time mules who are doing it out of desperation, it may also work on amateur (AKA idiot) terrorists.
However, as we can see the 9/11 terrorists all managed to board a plane without panicking or looking suspicious, because they are all believed to have received paramilitary or military training. These trainings inevitably involve keeping calm under duress. Normally military training involves mock interrogations to train the soldier to withstand questioning and thus keep them calm about the risk of being questioned.
In accordance with a medically necessitated test. If a gynecologist is sticking a finger in a womans vagina, whether s/he has implicit or explicit consent is sexual assault if performed under misinformation.
If a doctor gropes my testicles or sticks a finger up my ass without medical justification for doing so, it is sexual asault.
Given that the 'pat down' is the least effective screening procedure in an airport, it has very little reason to be performed for the reasons given. The real reason the pat downs are performed is to find drugs concealed on the body.
Why is a pat down used, when a dog can more easily be used with less harassment of passengers and more verifiability in courts. Bloodhound evidence is permissible in all courts (IIRC) generally without any question because of the safe guards. The bloodhound will detect if you have an illicit substance on you, even if it is in an unverifiable quantity by an officer. If you aren't actually carrying, you won't be arrested as you're not prosecutable. So why isn't this used? Mostly because a bloodhound isn't intimidating to people who know they won't be busted.
Airline security is designed to add pressure, to make people feel nervous because people with a reason to be nervous simply walking past an officer will be panicking. This allows them to catch all the one-time mules who are doing it out of desperation, it may also work on amateur (AKA idiot) terrorists.
However, as we can see the 9/11 terrorists all managed to board a plane without panicking or looking suspicious, because they are all believed to have received paramilitary or military training. These trainings inevitably involve keeping calm under duress. Normally military training involves mock interrogations to train the soldier to withstand questioning and thus keep them calm about the risk of being questioned.
We're hackers here. Are we convinced someone dedicated could not hide something as deadly as a box cutter in a body cavity? So without the cavity search, this is just security theater.
Here's another possibility for consideration: trained individuals can use physical force equally, if not more, effectively for submission or harm. Do they really need a box cutter or a bomb in order to crash a plane wherever they please?
No, they really don't. However, I think terrorists use weapons to try to command fear. People are afraid of knives, guns and especially bombs.
Two people are almost guaranteed to take down one man with a knife, because at worst one of the two will be stabbed if you rush the guy. At best the knife is handled and the two people tackle the guy.
Furthermore a box cutter isn't very dangerous. I use one daily at work, the blades are very weak (especially the x-acto style) and cannot be used fully extended or any sideways pressure would snap it (IE grab for the blade and twist your hand, or just try side swiping the blade and it would likely brake to no more than a 1/2" of protruding blade). Rigid blade box cutters (IE Stanley Knife) rarely protrude beyond 1" to 1.5". This still likely sounds very scary to 90% of people, you're still being cut by a knife. However, you're being cut by a knife that's as thin as a scalpel - IE any first aid kit can easily fix a soft-tissue injury if you got stabbed in the torso. For these blades to slash properly, you'd likely get less than a 1/4-1/2" of actual penetration. It would hurt in the aftermath but wouldn't likely cause enough harm to stop you as an initial attack.
The best way to handle a person with a box cutter would likely to be a full-on body-check. If he's in the aisle, he either confronts or runs as there's not enough room for him to dodge you. If he runs, you carry on with the plan and tackle him to the ground. If he confronts you, make sure you jump for the impact. If he stabs you, you'll both still be going to the ground.
When there's a bomb on the plane, you've got nothing to lose by not trying. If someone's got a gun, again, it's simply tackle them. However, a dead-rush won't likely help unless you have kevlar handy so would require a bit more finesse. However, as a group effort taking down a gunman is the best thing to do.
Two people are almost guaranteed to take down one man with a knife, because at worst one of the two will be stabbed if you rush the guy. At best the knife is handled and the two people tackle the guy.
Furthermore a box cutter isn't very dangerous. I use one daily at work, the blades are very weak (especially the x-acto style) and cannot be used fully extended or any sideways pressure would snap it (IE grab for the blade and twist your hand, or just try side swiping the blade and it would likely brake to no more than a 1/2" of protruding blade). Rigid blade box cutters (IE Stanley Knife) rarely protrude beyond 1" to 1.5". This still likely sounds very scary to 90% of people, you're still being cut by a knife. However, you're being cut by a knife that's as thin as a scalpel - IE any first aid kit can easily fix a soft-tissue injury if you got stabbed in the torso. For these blades to slash properly, you'd likely get less than a 1/4-1/2" of actual penetration. It would hurt in the aftermath but wouldn't likely cause enough harm to stop you as an initial attack.
The best way to handle a person with a box cutter would likely to be a full-on body-check. If he's in the aisle, he either confronts or runs as there's not enough room for him to dodge you. If he runs, you carry on with the plan and tackle him to the ground. If he confronts you, make sure you jump for the impact. If he stabs you, you'll both still be going to the ground.
When there's a bomb on the plane, you've got nothing to lose by not trying. If someone's got a gun, again, it's simply tackle them. However, a dead-rush won't likely help unless you have kevlar handy so would require a bit more finesse. However, as a group effort taking down a gunman is the best thing to do.
I'm not even going to pretend I have the capacity of analyzing such a complicated situation, let alone reach a verdict on its outcome. You certainly seem confident enough about it. All I was trying to point out was that threats can hack their way into airplanes and airports from unforeseen directions, and TSA procedures aren't at all helpful.
Don't give them ideas.
> there are many circumstances in life where we must suffer the same indignities
> which are not considered assault. A visit to the doctor for example.
If you are required to get groped by the receptionist before you are allowed to see your doctor, you might have a point.
If you are required to get groped by the receptionist before you are allowed to see your doctor, you might have a point.
Yes. Thankyou. That's why I put in footnote 1. One of the biggest problems with this is we seem to have a spectrum of consent from the "I'll make them grope my sack before going like a sheep into the nudie-pic-machine" to the author of this article who had no foreknowledge or choice in the matter. The consent factor is very important here.
"I'd rather take my chances on the bomb." I wish more people, especially politicians, were mature enough to accept this. Not gonna happen in current western political systems though.
I strongly agree. I think if you read the post it is definitely evident that although this was an unpleasant experience, the author is blowing things out of proportion. I know that may seem insensitive, but in the context of your post, I think it's important to be explicit about this point.
The woman was given a rather invasive through-clothing security pat down. Of course this can be discomforting and invasive, especially if you're caught off guard. And of course such searches are extremely hard to justify and should never be codified into policy. Yes, it can be traumatic and violating, but this is nothing like a rape or "real" sexual assault.
A few months ago a jogger around here was hit with a cinder block, dragged off the trail, raped several times, beat with said block more, and left for dead in the woods. _That_ is real sexual assault. Such rapes are not really uncommon, though many less violent rapes also occur, and they are also highly traumatic and serious; much more serious than a TSA worker going about their mundane duties, which they are probably not very happy to be forced to perform either.
The activity described in the post is unpleasant touching, and I agree that we shouldn't allow it, but these events are not even in the same league as "real" sexual abuse or rape. I support your efforts to reclaim the term as a service to those many who've suffered serious abuses whole-heartedly.
The woman was given a rather invasive through-clothing security pat down. Of course this can be discomforting and invasive, especially if you're caught off guard. And of course such searches are extremely hard to justify and should never be codified into policy. Yes, it can be traumatic and violating, but this is nothing like a rape or "real" sexual assault.
A few months ago a jogger around here was hit with a cinder block, dragged off the trail, raped several times, beat with said block more, and left for dead in the woods. _That_ is real sexual assault. Such rapes are not really uncommon, though many less violent rapes also occur, and they are also highly traumatic and serious; much more serious than a TSA worker going about their mundane duties, which they are probably not very happy to be forced to perform either.
The activity described in the post is unpleasant touching, and I agree that we shouldn't allow it, but these events are not even in the same league as "real" sexual abuse or rape. I support your efforts to reclaim the term as a service to those many who've suffered serious abuses whole-heartedly.
According to the various definitions on http://www.google.com/search?q=define:+sexual+assault it seems to me that she was in fact sexually assaulted. Getting touched in private parts without consent is an assault of sexual nature.
There are other sexual assault cases that are much more severe but you can't discount stealing $1,000 just because there are cases of people stealing $1,000,000. Theft is still theft and sexual assault is still sexual assault regardless of severity.
There are other sexual assault cases that are much more severe but you can't discount stealing $1,000 just because there are cases of people stealing $1,000,000. Theft is still theft and sexual assault is still sexual assault regardless of severity.
As I commented elsewhere, I am aware that the technical definition includes this, but when this woman goes around claiming she was "sexually assaulted", does that generally infer references to a TSA pat-down or something more serious? It's definitely a misappropriation of the term at least in its common usage, though possibly not its legal usage.
I think that's attempted murder and torture. Using that as the bar for sexual assault downplays real victoms' experiences as well. (I don't mean this to disagree with your overall point. I just don't want to see the bar swing the other way where people feel like they're being told to shut up about sexual assault unless they were bludgeoned with a cinderblock.)
Yeah, it is an extreme example. I used it to counter the opposite extreme posited by the article, that even unpleasant or unwanted or unexpected touching qualifies as "assault", but perhaps I was not adequately clear that less murderous assaults are also extremely serious and damaging. I don't mean to downplay those at all.
In my mind, I suppose the bar for physical "sexual assault" is set around the forced handling of sexual organs or material in a sexual context. I acknowledge that psychological sexual assault can also occur. I don't mean this to exclude anyone with a legitimate case, but I think we have to be explicit if we are going to prevent self-important mommy bloggers from exploiting an unpleasant security pat down at the expense of the many victims who face serious repercussions from sustained abuses.
Such wolf-criers make things much harder on women who have histories that include legitimate abuses and I've seen that directly in people close to me. Perhaps that is why the grandparent and I both feel strongly on this situation.
In my mind, I suppose the bar for physical "sexual assault" is set around the forced handling of sexual organs or material in a sexual context. I acknowledge that psychological sexual assault can also occur. I don't mean this to exclude anyone with a legitimate case, but I think we have to be explicit if we are going to prevent self-important mommy bloggers from exploiting an unpleasant security pat down at the expense of the many victims who face serious repercussions from sustained abuses.
Such wolf-criers make things much harder on women who have histories that include legitimate abuses and I've seen that directly in people close to me. Perhaps that is why the grandparent and I both feel strongly on this situation.
>I used it to counter the opposite extreme posited by the article, that even unpleasant or unwanted or unexpected touching qualifies as "assault"
Unwanted touching absolutely qualifies as assault. Imagine a movie theater, sick of people videoing their movies, started doing "pat downs" like this. It would be very clearly sexual assault then. And if the person they were touching were a child it would be even more clear.
Unwanted touching absolutely qualifies as assault. Imagine a movie theater, sick of people videoing their movies, started doing "pat downs" like this. It would be very clearly sexual assault then. And if the person they were touching were a child it would be even more clear.
No, it would not be "sexual assault". It would again be unpleasant or unwanted touching. I'm not endorsing that, but I don't think technicalities about the term are appropriate. Sexual assault is a serious thing, pat downs are definitely unpleasant and bad, but they are not like serious assaults.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_assault
inappropriate touching is sexual assault in many jurisdictions.
I don't think many men seem to understand this.
The rules are clear regarding the TSA agent's responsibilities. The agent didn't meet those responsibilities. They proceeded to touch this woman in ways she didn't consent to. In many places in the world, and in my own opinion, that is sexual assault and is not worthy of being down-played or dismissed.
inappropriate touching is sexual assault in many jurisdictions.
I don't think many men seem to understand this.
The rules are clear regarding the TSA agent's responsibilities. The agent didn't meet those responsibilities. They proceeded to touch this woman in ways she didn't consent to. In many places in the world, and in my own opinion, that is sexual assault and is not worthy of being down-played or dismissed.
Right, _technically_ it is "sexual assault" by legal definitions. But that's not what you invoke when you say "I've been sexually assaulted". It's about the common usage and the denigration of the terminology that affects victims of serious cases negatively.
This isn't a pat down. They trace your genitals with their finger through your cloths. If a teacher did this to a child they would be on the national sex offenders registry for the rest of their lives.
It was also attempted murder and torture, in addition to sexual assault at its very worst.
How are you certain it was through-clothing? The first time I read the following I envisioned that it was under the clothes.
"She felt along my waistline, moved behind me, then proceeded to feel both of my buttocks. She reached from behind in the middle of my buttocks towards my vagina area."
"She then felt my inner thighs and my vagina area, touching both of my labia."
If it's through clothing then it really sounds like nothing more than a thorough security search that I've experienced many times just to get into a night club. The person patting me down didn't tell me she was going to touch my testicles, but a portion of her hand did touch my testicles, through clothing mind you. Or to write in the above fashion:
"She wrapped her arms around my torso and felt up and down my back, then she bent at the knees so that her face was in very close proximity to my penis and put her hands on my buttocks, squeezing them and moving them up and down."
"She then moved her hands around to the front and inside of my thighs, touching each of my testicles."
The way it is written, and the fact that this woman feels so violated, I imagined this was all going on under the clothes. I don't see how a standard through clothing pat down could be traumatic, but I guess everybody has a different threshold for acceptable behaviour. I have to admit it is a bit jarring to have your sensitive bits jarred by a stranger, but this is not sexual assault given the context.
She was told she was going to be searched, and she was searched. There's no need to have disclosure about every specific part of your body that is going to be touched when you consent to a search. Yes, a hand my briefly come in contact with your labia through your clothing. That should be understood by most adults with common knowledge and experience.
If this woman truly feels violated in the same way that a sexual assult victim does, then I think her sensitivity threshold is abnormal. That's not her fault, nor is it anybody else's to be held accountable for.
"She felt along my waistline, moved behind me, then proceeded to feel both of my buttocks. She reached from behind in the middle of my buttocks towards my vagina area."
"She then felt my inner thighs and my vagina area, touching both of my labia."
If it's through clothing then it really sounds like nothing more than a thorough security search that I've experienced many times just to get into a night club. The person patting me down didn't tell me she was going to touch my testicles, but a portion of her hand did touch my testicles, through clothing mind you. Or to write in the above fashion:
"She wrapped her arms around my torso and felt up and down my back, then she bent at the knees so that her face was in very close proximity to my penis and put her hands on my buttocks, squeezing them and moving them up and down."
"She then moved her hands around to the front and inside of my thighs, touching each of my testicles."
The way it is written, and the fact that this woman feels so violated, I imagined this was all going on under the clothes. I don't see how a standard through clothing pat down could be traumatic, but I guess everybody has a different threshold for acceptable behaviour. I have to admit it is a bit jarring to have your sensitive bits jarred by a stranger, but this is not sexual assault given the context.
She was told she was going to be searched, and she was searched. There's no need to have disclosure about every specific part of your body that is going to be touched when you consent to a search. Yes, a hand my briefly come in contact with your labia through your clothing. That should be understood by most adults with common knowledge and experience.
If this woman truly feels violated in the same way that a sexual assult victim does, then I think her sensitivity threshold is abnormal. That's not her fault, nor is it anybody else's to be held accountable for.
You raise some valid points - let's look at it from a completely different angle, namely what's our goals.
I'd like two things to happen: First for the lady blogger mom to get over it, and second for the TSA to be sharply pulled back from their ever more ridiculous policies which are both ineffective and intrusive. They're incompetent monkeys and we keep giving them more power. Which, unsurprisingly, only makes them more annoying, not more competent.
Firstly, if you consider yourself a "victim" of anything your best recourse is one of reflection, and ultimately one of forgiveness in the knowledge that the perpetrators are more insane than other people. You are not a victim. Something happened to you - it was bad - it can't be changed now - but is it going to ruin the rest of your life? That's for you to decide all alone.
I'll refer you to the Buddhist parable of Two Monks here [http://www.examiner.com/buddhism-in-national/buddhist-parabl...]
You don't forgive in order to make life somehow easier for whoever wronged you - you do it in order to make your own life better.
Second the TSA policies and procedures are a joke. The TSA must be stopped. If it takes people getting outraged or stopping air travel to do this - I am all for it. Publish this story as widely as possible, crack jokes on Leno, etc - I don't think it takes away from actual victims of actual sexual harassment (or worse). Victim-hood is overrated, and I firmly believe that the active approach is the only valid approach to solve trauma. Avoidance of the topic isn't going to solve anything (neither is confrontation BTW - insight is what is needed and what resolves seemingly impossible problems in an instant).
Sorry this is not more coherent. Argh.
I'd like two things to happen: First for the lady blogger mom to get over it, and second for the TSA to be sharply pulled back from their ever more ridiculous policies which are both ineffective and intrusive. They're incompetent monkeys and we keep giving them more power. Which, unsurprisingly, only makes them more annoying, not more competent.
Firstly, if you consider yourself a "victim" of anything your best recourse is one of reflection, and ultimately one of forgiveness in the knowledge that the perpetrators are more insane than other people. You are not a victim. Something happened to you - it was bad - it can't be changed now - but is it going to ruin the rest of your life? That's for you to decide all alone.
I'll refer you to the Buddhist parable of Two Monks here [http://www.examiner.com/buddhism-in-national/buddhist-parabl...]
You don't forgive in order to make life somehow easier for whoever wronged you - you do it in order to make your own life better.
Second the TSA policies and procedures are a joke. The TSA must be stopped. If it takes people getting outraged or stopping air travel to do this - I am all for it. Publish this story as widely as possible, crack jokes on Leno, etc - I don't think it takes away from actual victims of actual sexual harassment (or worse). Victim-hood is overrated, and I firmly believe that the active approach is the only valid approach to solve trauma. Avoidance of the topic isn't going to solve anything (neither is confrontation BTW - insight is what is needed and what resolves seemingly impossible problems in an instant).
Sorry this is not more coherent. Argh.
The thing that annoys me the most about this new TSA rebellion is that Americans realized TSA policy is way over only now that people started touching (or even just scanning) their boops and junks.
I completely agree that while she may feel violated, this is not sexual assault, and to say it is detracts from any argument about the rationality behind this new policy.
Sexual assault requires a sexual motive and a sexual act, neither of which occurred here. The intent and action were both to search. A doctor touching the same place in the same way would not be considered sexual assault because there is no sexual intent.
The issues of notice and consent raised elsewhere are separate. If a doctor does not warn you that you will be touched, it is unprofessional, but not sexual assault. If you are committed to a prison and have no choice but to be put through a medical checkup involving touching private areas, it is non-consensual, but not sexual assault.
The hyperbole in the debate around this policy threatens any rational debate and conclusion.
Sexual assault requires a sexual motive and a sexual act, neither of which occurred here. The intent and action were both to search. A doctor touching the same place in the same way would not be considered sexual assault because there is no sexual intent.
The issues of notice and consent raised elsewhere are separate. If a doctor does not warn you that you will be touched, it is unprofessional, but not sexual assault. If you are committed to a prison and have no choice but to be put through a medical checkup involving touching private areas, it is non-consensual, but not sexual assault.
The hyperbole in the debate around this policy threatens any rational debate and conclusion.
At the risk of sounding cynical or aloof, I think the times when rational debate shaped the political climate and real-world policies of this country have long gone. It might be time for intelligent people to take a cue from Fox News and (dare I say?) start manipulating emotion to get what needs to be done, done.
>this is not sexual assault
And tomorrow I bet we're going to start hearing claims that "she was asking for it anyway".
And tomorrow I bet we're going to start hearing claims that "she was asking for it anyway".
yeah, because it doesn't matter what the victim of an assault thinks, just whats going on in the mind of the assailant.
No, not just in the mind of the assailant, but feeling like you've been been assaulted doesn't make it assault, either. There is a lot of case law refining the status of the relationship between the intents of the attacker and the perception of the event of the victim. (I'm not familiar with specific US examples on this, maybe someone else can fill me in here...)
Careful, it doesn't rest solely upon the perception of the victim either.
Based on what my OP has already stirred up, it looks like there's a point of friction where circumstance, intent of assailant and perception of victim interesct. Lively debate will no doubt ensue because when it come to this TSA patdown thing, these variables are all over the map.
Based on what my OP has already stirred up, it looks like there's a point of friction where circumstance, intent of assailant and perception of victim interesct. Lively debate will no doubt ensue because when it come to this TSA patdown thing, these variables are all over the map.
Well, the "victim" of an overzealous security search probably thinks it's outrageous that they need to have their crotch fondled by security just to hop on a plane. That's no real problem.
It's possible that they think the official is enjoying themselves. That's a real problem, maybe.
And maybe the official is enjoying themselves, which is definitely a real problem.
It's a thorny issue.
It's possible that they think the official is enjoying themselves. That's a real problem, maybe.
And maybe the official is enjoying themselves, which is definitely a real problem.
It's a thorny issue.
Saying it's not sexual assault doesn't mean the person's feelings aren't real, or that they weren't victimized, or didn't feel violated. It simply means you can not accuse the person performing the search of sexual assault. Accusing the TSA agent, who was doing their job of searching a passenger with (I'm hoping) no sexual intent, of sexual assault creates a second victim, and is extremely irresponsible and unethical.
For the most part, yes, it doesn't matter what the victim thinks when deciding whether to accuse someone of sexual assault.
If I throw a wild pitch and hit you in the head, it's different than throwing an accurate pitch at your head, even if you can't tell the difference. Both are bad - but one is assault. Intent matters.
For the most part, yes, it doesn't matter what the victim thinks when deciding whether to accuse someone of sexual assault.
If I throw a wild pitch and hit you in the head, it's different than throwing an accurate pitch at your head, even if you can't tell the difference. Both are bad - but one is assault. Intent matters.
the people violating our fourth amendment protection against unreasonable searches are willingly creating the first victim, so I'm not too concerned they'll be mislabeled, especially when they refuse to stop after being informed of the impacts of their behavior.
If it did matter what the victim thought, any patient could accuse their doctor of sexual assault because they had a bad day and felt victimized by their check-up.
If they are going for a checkup and that kind of inspection is unexpected, uncharacteristic and unreasonable - like perhaps at an eyetest - then the complaint would be valid, otherwise it would be dismissed as asinine.
Unfortunately you need to re-read.
They(TSA) did not follow SOP and warn her that such a search would entail what was described thus its sexual assault be legal definition..same rules as the pat-down when someone is arrested BTW..
They(TSA) did not follow SOP and warn her that such a search would entail what was described thus its sexual assault be legal definition..same rules as the pat-down when someone is arrested BTW..
This post should be more prominent in this thread. People are claiming hyperbole here but what happened was literally sexual assault. I think the case could also be made for young since they are not able to legally consent to the activity.
I like the implication that it'd be ok if she wasn't an American citizen.
American citizens have a lot of protections under Constitutional and federal law. Visitors have a lot fewer protections. Her citizenship didn't make the crime, it just made it worse.
Not only American citizens; as a green-card holder I have almost all of the same rights, the only right I don't have is the right to vote. I have the exact same constitutional rights as everyone else, even though I am a resident alien in this country.
A citizen can't be deported for any reason, ever. And I'm sure there are other differences.
Well when you start pissing off the people that like to scream "I'm an American!" then there's a fighting chance that things can change.
That's exactly the point that irked me. Would she find it ok, if it was done to her in say Europe.
According to the TSA, http://bit.ly/b133H4 ,
"there is no fondling, squeezing, groping, or any sort of sexual assault taking place at airports. You have a professional workforce carrying out procedures they were trained to perform to keep aviation security safe."
Does this mean my government lying to me?? Well I'll be damned!
Does this mean my government lying to me?? Well I'll be damned!
The TSA policy concerns me.
The only silver lining I see is that they may be responsive to the public outcry and figure out a better way to screen people. Perhaps, we should get the Israelis to train our TSA folks
http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/08/enhanced-pat-downs.html offers one reason to be optimistic. A number of critical comments talk about "molesting", "groping", "assault" etc. and these comments haven't been censored. The fact that the govt is permitting an open discussion may well mean that they'll take all the feedback into consideration.
The only silver lining I see is that they may be responsive to the public outcry and figure out a better way to screen people. Perhaps, we should get the Israelis to train our TSA folks
http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/08/enhanced-pat-downs.html offers one reason to be optimistic. A number of critical comments talk about "molesting", "groping", "assault" etc. and these comments haven't been censored. The fact that the govt is permitting an open discussion may well mean that they'll take all the feedback into consideration.
> The fact that the govt is permitting an open discussion
We may well be on a slippery slope but I don't recall the government issuing permits for open discussions - yet. Or even a group of people needing said permit to conduct said open discussion.
Although I agree with you about the Israel thing.
We may well be on a slippery slope but I don't recall the government issuing permits for open discussions - yet. Or even a group of people needing said permit to conduct said open discussion.
Although I agree with you about the Israel thing.
TSA is pushing forward sexual revolution -- there is no place for sexual shyness in the new world.
If you think about it: TSA pisses off both Liberals and Conservatives now. I wonder how long would it last.
If you think about it: TSA pisses off both Liberals and Conservatives now. I wonder how long would it last.
In absence of a better term for this, 'Sexual Assault' does convey the emotional experience of being abused in this way.
Yes, it is clearly not about sexuality, but it is a situation where there is a massive imbalance of power. Who is there to verify that your human rights are being upheld?
It is not a situation in which you can complain, even if there was abuse - because you'll miss your flight and look like a terrorist. Then there is the social pressure to conform in front of a large audience of people who you will delay if you do complain. Not to mention the number of uniformed and armed guards present.
Yes, it is clearly not about sexuality, but it is a situation where there is a massive imbalance of power. Who is there to verify that your human rights are being upheld?
It is not a situation in which you can complain, even if there was abuse - because you'll miss your flight and look like a terrorist. Then there is the social pressure to conform in front of a large audience of people who you will delay if you do complain. Not to mention the number of uniformed and armed guards present.
I think this matter has been conversated enough in HN.
I don't believe this subject is gratifying majority's intellectual curiosity.
It might be provoking lots of feelings, but this is not Feelings News nor Moral News but Hacker News.
I'm not saying anyone has been posting badly. I'm just saying that I've seen these "TSA sexual assault" twice now, and I don't think any new ideas will come along third time.
I don't believe this subject is gratifying majority's intellectual curiosity.
It might be provoking lots of feelings, but this is not Feelings News nor Moral News but Hacker News.
I'm not saying anyone has been posting badly. I'm just saying that I've seen these "TSA sexual assault" twice now, and I don't think any new ideas will come along third time.
For all the understandable outrage, this seems like a genie that will be very hard to put back in the bottle.
What politician is going to risk canning a security protocol when there's a not-unreasonable chance of a civilian airplane being blown up in the next few years? Who wants to be the politician that has to explain, after several hundred people died, why they canned any device or protocol which may have helped stopped the attack, however remote the likelihood?
I'm not saying it's rational or appropriate, I'm saying it's politically untenable, regardless of the horror stories like the one posted.
Perhaps airlines should offer 'enhanced' or 'standard' security flights, and people can choose whether they fly on a plane where everyone has pat downs or scans, or whether they don't. At least that way there would be a choice...
What politician is going to risk canning a security protocol when there's a not-unreasonable chance of a civilian airplane being blown up in the next few years? Who wants to be the politician that has to explain, after several hundred people died, why they canned any device or protocol which may have helped stopped the attack, however remote the likelihood?
I'm not saying it's rational or appropriate, I'm saying it's politically untenable, regardless of the horror stories like the one posted.
Perhaps airlines should offer 'enhanced' or 'standard' security flights, and people can choose whether they fly on a plane where everyone has pat downs or scans, or whether they don't. At least that way there would be a choice...
I cannot recall a similar issue sparking as much across-the-board outrage since the "war on terrorism" began. However taboo it may be to discuss relaxing security requirements, that may turn out to be the lesser of two political evils.
I agree. I think any politician could reasonably trot out a counter to the "he took out our line of defense" with a "I stopped your kids from being x-rayed or groped by getting rid of something that would have been ineffective in stopping this attack".
What is politically untenable are stories like these. This is an absolute nightmare.
It's too late to get rid of this ridiculous security theater but it's not too late to get rid of invasive and utterly ineffective procedures that are just getting started.
A couple of links that mention the Ohio laws:
http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/sexual-imposition/
http://kittywampus.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/tsa-enhanced-pat...
http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=128_HB_333
Doesn't really matter what words a person thinks are appropriate, it really matters what laws might have been violated and what the incident would be called under the law.
Doesn't really matter what words a person thinks are appropriate, it really matters what laws might have been violated and what the incident would be called under the law.
[deleted]
Just a thought.
Fight fire with fire. Sue the TSA and all its agents who performed the perceived insanity. A thousand (or million) court proceedings speaking against this would surely give the TSA a lot of headaches, that they would actually think of implementing something better in providing security for air travel.
I feel sorry for the Mom, who had to go through the ordeal and have to live with it everyday from this day forward. Though I feel more sorry for the kids who have been and who would be subjected to such grave abuse of authority.
Fight fire with fire. Sue the TSA and all its agents who performed the perceived insanity. A thousand (or million) court proceedings speaking against this would surely give the TSA a lot of headaches, that they would actually think of implementing something better in providing security for air travel.
I feel sorry for the Mom, who had to go through the ordeal and have to live with it everyday from this day forward. Though I feel more sorry for the kids who have been and who would be subjected to such grave abuse of authority.
Maybe it's be better if people stated it as they would like it to be 'stop treating us like terrorists'.
That's essentially what has happened. The government has decided that everybody is a terrorist unless proven otherwise. Any high ranking official who does not believe this idea is 'supporting terrorists'.
Will there be metal detectors at supermarkets if something happens at a supermarket. Would that be so strange? Some high schools already have metal detectors. Where does it end?
That's essentially what has happened. The government has decided that everybody is a terrorist unless proven otherwise. Any high ranking official who does not believe this idea is 'supporting terrorists'.
Will there be metal detectors at supermarkets if something happens at a supermarket. Would that be so strange? Some high schools already have metal detectors. Where does it end?
There's a Senate TSA Oversight Hearing on Wed, 11/17.
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&C...
Call or Write your senators, especially if they're on the committee.
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&C...
Call or Write your senators, especially if they're on the committee.
I am starting to wonder if perhaps there is something wrong with me, for I am not outraged as everyone else seems to be. So long as there's no groping etc going on, I'm inclined to just shrug and say to the agent, "well, you gotta do what you gotta do".
I am sorry HN, but I find myself lacking the desire to board this bandwagon.
I am sorry HN, but I find myself lacking the desire to board this bandwagon.
"So long as there's no groping etc going on"
That is precisely the issue at hand. A woman's libia & vagina were touched in this particular case. In other accounts, various forms of fondling and groping occurred to men, women and children of various ages from 9 years (youngest stories I can recall) to senor citizens.
I have a sister who needs to fly from time to time. I'm outraged at the possibility that she may have to endue this at some point. I am outraged that I may have to submit to letting someone who I don't want near me feeling me up in my private parts.
Today these are happening to a select few. Tomorrow these will become common security practices. It's not an acceptable tactic.
That is precisely the issue at hand. A woman's libia & vagina were touched in this particular case. In other accounts, various forms of fondling and groping occurred to men, women and children of various ages from 9 years (youngest stories I can recall) to senor citizens.
I have a sister who needs to fly from time to time. I'm outraged at the possibility that she may have to endue this at some point. I am outraged that I may have to submit to letting someone who I don't want near me feeling me up in my private parts.
Today these are happening to a select few. Tomorrow these will become common security practices. It's not an acceptable tactic.
wait, did you just say contact = groping?
>"well, you gotta do what you gotta do"
Except they don't. This procedure is not remotely effective, it serves no purpose except to shame people into using the naked scanner (and indeed, this appears to be the point, since the "pat down" takes place in plain view of everyone). This is why you should be outraged. This is pure thuggery.
Except they don't. This procedure is not remotely effective, it serves no purpose except to shame people into using the naked scanner (and indeed, this appears to be the point, since the "pat down" takes place in plain view of everyone). This is why you should be outraged. This is pure thuggery.
I commented on the blog about how she was overreacting and told her to think about how the TSA agent must have felt (having to do that several times per day). My comment got deleted.
There are a lot of smart people here who are apparently outraged at this. But I wonder if any of them are going to do anything about it other than type in this thread.
America spends more than twice as much on the TSA's unconstitutional security theater than it spends on all FBI counter-terrorism activities.
I hate to admit that I was expecting the Fresh Prince of Bel-Aire theme song after her description of this event.
Whilst it appears there was a pretty serious of protocol, the author's hysteria verges on trivialising real sexual assault.
Lack of consent - check (Nor even a warning, for that matter.) Touching of genitals by a stranger - check. What else needs to be there so that it constitutes real sexual assault?
Gratification? A sexual motive?
Can the people downvoting me honestly not see the difference between a person performing an act of gratuitous violence on another person to satisfy their own urges and a person doing their job badly?
Can the people downvoting me honestly not see the difference between a person performing an act of gratuitous violence on another person to satisfy their own urges and a person doing their job badly?
At the minimum it is sexual battery [1] and sexual imposition [2] and it could be argued that it was gross sexual imposition [3]. Ohio doesn't even use the phrase "sexual assault" in its laws about sex offenses [4]. The point is, quibbling about terminology is silly. Any reasonable human being understands what the author of the blog post is getting at. She was touched in a sexual way without her consent, without any foreknowledge of the event, and under some duress. Whatever you want to term the event is irrelevant.
[1] http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.03
[2] http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.06
[3] http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.05
[4] http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907
[1] http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.03
[2] http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.06
[3] http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.05
[4] http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907
"Quibbling about terminology" isn't "silly" when someone is making a public accusation of a sex crime. Neither of us are lawers, but right there in the statutes you've posted is the line "Sexual contact means any touching of an erogenous zone of another, including without limitation the thigh, genitals, buttock, pubic region, or, if the person is a female, a breast, for the purpose of sexually arousing or gratifying either person." [emphasis mine].
I don't think that brushing up against erogenous zones as part of a search procedure constitues "sexual contact" even though I agree that the TSA employee appears to have failed to give adequate warning and shown a lack of discretion in singling out a new mother in the first place. I don't doubt the indignity of her experience may have been shocking and upsetting, but it stopped well short of sexual abuse.
As other people have pointed out in this thread with rather more eloquence than me, the semantics actually are important here (i) because sexual assault is a very serious crime with significant consequences for both victim and perpetrator (ii) because hyperbole detracts from serious scrutiny of the boundaries of acceptability.
I don't think that brushing up against erogenous zones as part of a search procedure constitues "sexual contact" even though I agree that the TSA employee appears to have failed to give adequate warning and shown a lack of discretion in singling out a new mother in the first place. I don't doubt the indignity of her experience may have been shocking and upsetting, but it stopped well short of sexual abuse.
As other people have pointed out in this thread with rather more eloquence than me, the semantics actually are important here (i) because sexual assault is a very serious crime with significant consequences for both victim and perpetrator (ii) because hyperbole detracts from serious scrutiny of the boundaries of acceptability.
The funny thing about your line of argument is that she didn't make a "public accusation of a sex crime" because "sexual assault" is not a sex crime that is defined in Ohio. If we're going to try to be pedantic here, let's actually be correct.
What definition of sexual assault are you using exactly? Your original contention is that the author is trivializing "real" sexual assault by using the phrase "sexual assault" in an inappropriate way, yet in Ohio no such a thing exists. So it's inappropriate according to what definition? What you're actually doing is inventing in your own mind what you think sexual assault should be and then getting angry at the author for violating your contrived definition.
Do you see why it's stupid to be pedantic about the specific phrase "sexual assault"? The author used the phrase sexual assault not to conform to a definition, but because she was touched in a sexual way and felt assaulted. In my opinion such feelings are perfectly reasonable in this situation. I would have felt assaulted had I not been given a warning.
Anyone who is quibbling about terminology in this thread is guilty of the phenomena that happens when nerds meet reality: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1880553.
What definition of sexual assault are you using exactly? Your original contention is that the author is trivializing "real" sexual assault by using the phrase "sexual assault" in an inappropriate way, yet in Ohio no such a thing exists. So it's inappropriate according to what definition? What you're actually doing is inventing in your own mind what you think sexual assault should be and then getting angry at the author for violating your contrived definition.
Do you see why it's stupid to be pedantic about the specific phrase "sexual assault"? The author used the phrase sexual assault not to conform to a definition, but because she was touched in a sexual way and felt assaulted. In my opinion such feelings are perfectly reasonable in this situation. I would have felt assaulted had I not been given a warning.
Anyone who is quibbling about terminology in this thread is guilty of the phenomena that happens when nerds meet reality: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1880553.
Slightly against my better judgment (good link btw) I'm going to post again...
I don't think there's anything novel or "contrived" about assuming the phrase "sexual assault" implies some form of illegal gratuitous behaviour with a sexual motivation, regardless of what jurisdiction you live in (sexual assault is a crime where I live, and the Ohio state government appears to use the term frequently with respect to supporting abuse victims). I also interpreted the author's repetition of the phrase in conjunction with other carefully selected terms like "incident" as a conscious attempt to draw parallels between her experience and that of the victims of sex crimes.
I don't doubt that she's drawing those parallels because she's sincerely upset, but I do think there's a dangerous line being crossed when we start equivocating intentional assaults and incidental contact, and leave it up to the accuser to define whether conduct was abusive or sexual. I also think it would be doing a disservice to people who've been wilfully abused for others' gratification to suggest that their treatment is akin to what some people experience going through airport security. I hope that clarifies the original intent of my comments.
I don't think there's anything novel or "contrived" about assuming the phrase "sexual assault" implies some form of illegal gratuitous behaviour with a sexual motivation, regardless of what jurisdiction you live in (sexual assault is a crime where I live, and the Ohio state government appears to use the term frequently with respect to supporting abuse victims). I also interpreted the author's repetition of the phrase in conjunction with other carefully selected terms like "incident" as a conscious attempt to draw parallels between her experience and that of the victims of sex crimes.
I don't doubt that she's drawing those parallels because she's sincerely upset, but I do think there's a dangerous line being crossed when we start equivocating intentional assaults and incidental contact, and leave it up to the accuser to define whether conduct was abusive or sexual. I also think it would be doing a disservice to people who've been wilfully abused for others' gratification to suggest that their treatment is akin to what some people experience going through airport security. I hope that clarifies the original intent of my comments.
The only way I could understand such fixation to terminology is if you were a lawyer.
Hysteria? I think it was shockingly calmly written, given the circumstance.
Could you please define "real" in this context.
Well, while the legal definition of assault is based on contact in general, I would guess that notahacker is talking about injurious violence, or at least a solid threat of it, as 'real assault'. And probably 'real' in terms of 'sexual' would mean something sexually motivated.
That's the problem with categories; a whole range of behaviors end up with the same name, and now we're wasting time with semantics instead of worrying about the rights violation.
That's the problem with categories; a whole range of behaviors end up with the same name, and now we're wasting time with semantics instead of worrying about the rights violation.
[deleted]
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
One might say that you submit to this as part of the deal to get on the plane. But if that were true, it would be between you and the airline, not the government. That means it really should be the airlines that decide how intrusive searches should be. And you would be free to choose an airline whose policies you agree with. And the airline would be free to reject you as a passenger.
The government has hijacked the relationship between you and the people you've hired to get you from point A to point B. Just because of previous lapses in their intelligence efforts enabled some people to do something terrible doesn't mean you lose your rights.