Investigate the TSA, Not Tyner

The TSA is opening an investigation targeting John Tyner, the man who earned himself an aggressive "pat down" at the airport when he refused to go through the TSA's new AIT "porno scanners."

But it's the TSA that should be investigated, not Tyner.

Tyner was now allowed board his flight after he refused to allow himself to be groped, and now he could face both prosecution and a fine of $11,000.

But his real crime was making the "don't touch my junk" video showing exactly what happened during his encounter with the TSA, which sparked a public backlash.

Sign the Petition: Investigate the TSA, Not John Tyner

Help stop TSA's porno scanners, aggressive groping and abuse of power.

The new pat-down policy for refuseniks, which started on November 1, has been described by the Airline Pilots Association as "sexual molestation" -- and it's nothing more than a way to punish people who might boycott the Department of Homeland Security's expensive new boondoggle scanners. And prosecuting Tyner is blatant and very public way to intimidate anyone who might follow his lead.

This goes to show just how constant threats of "terror" are used to create new markets for products nobody needs. The public is then intimidated into compliance in the name of "national security," when in reality they're sacrificing their dignity, their civil liberties and their tax dollars for the sake of enormous profits:

• 2005: Michael Chertoff, as head of Homeland Security, orders the first batch of porno scanners from a company called Rapiscan Systems. After his departure, Chertoff gave dozens of interviews using his government credentials to promote the device. What he didn't tell people was that Rapiscan was one of the clients of his consulting company, The Chertoff group.


• March 2009: The Department of Homeland Security says they will apply $1 billion in stimulus money to the nation's airports. Senator Joe Lieberman, Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, personally promises to oversee the distribution of stimulus funds so money goes toward the goal of creating "4 million jobs" and not on "boondoggles"


• December 2009: Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz inserted language into the Homeland Security appropriations bill barring the use of fully-body image scans as "primary" screening tools at airports, and it passed the House on a bipartisan vote of 310-118. Both the ACLU and the NRA backed it. The amendment also made it illegal to store and copy these images. It died in the Senate.


• December 25, 2009: The "Christmas bomber" attempts to detonate plastic explosives hidden in his underwear while on board a flight to Detroit.
• December 29, 2009: Joe Lieberman calls for "more widespread use of the full-body scanners after the aborted attack."
  
• January 2009: Since they couldn't get money for the porno scanners from Congress, TSA uses the "Christmas bomber" scare to appropriate $25 million they had received in stimulus money to buy the "backscatter" scanners -- from Rapiscan, Chertoff's client. Rapiscan said the contract "helped create" 25 jobs. The government has gives the TSA the green light to spend a total of $173 million on the scanners. TSA spokesperson Sarah Horowitz said "the agency has enough funds that would come from the stimulus program and other federal sources" to purchase 300 more porno scanners, per CNN. Total jobs created, per the government's own website: 1.


• April 2010: The GAO reports that "it remains unclear whether the AIT would have detected the weapon used in the December 2009 incident based on the preliminary information GAO has received."


• November 8, 2010: US Airline Pilots Association tells its members "NOT to submit to AIT screenings."


• November 15, 2010: Joe Lieberman says he "comes down on the side of the patdowns."
  

The last thing the TSA needs is a pile of crappy technology that isn't even effective, that people refuse to use, right?

So the "groping" technique was developed as a way to punish people into using the scanners -- because there are $148 million more on the way. And just so nobody gets the idea to follow Tyner's lead, the TSA is using threats and intimidation to guarantee the market for the porno scanners. Whether Tyner is prosecuted or not, people will hear about what happened to him and think twice before refusing to become fodder for their new machines.

This is a full-on outrage.

It's time to investigate the TSA, not Tyner. Sign the petition demanding Congress investigate the TSA's porno scanners, aggressive groping, and abuses of power.

 

Follow Jane Hamsher on Twitter: www.twitter.com/janehamsher

Comments

[Orod]

04:02 PM on 11/21/2010

Correction to my previous comment, the last sentence should read "than our constitutional rights."

[Orod]

02:36 PM on 11/21/2010

This is yet another example of the fact that Obama is not just utterly spineless, but his administration is fully upholding and continuing to implement many of the policies put in place by the Bush administration. Not only the Obama administration is furthering many of those policies, but it is undertaking new ones with the same right wing ideological zeal as his predecessor.

Under the Obama Administration TSA has continued to move full throttle to implement Bush era policies and actions concocted by Chertoff and Ridge. This is primarily done through a powerful group of left-behind Republican Bush lackeys who continue to fully dominate TSA and DHS. The new decisions they issue reflect the same ideology which steadily eroded away our constitutional rights during the previous administration. As if that were not enough, the new Obama appointees, democrat or republican, also appear to be more interested in safeguarding the financial interest of Mr. Chertoff's consulting firm et al that our constitutional rights.

[carnitine]

10:30 AM on 11/21/2010

Actually i hope Tyner is fined the full amount. He is an instigator. He reminds me of those customers who look for any reason to jump on the sales staff.

[ItsBarranti]

07:46 AM on 11/18/2010

A regular boycott of the Airline industry won't work. Too many people need to fly, so your not flying won't even register. If you don't buy the ticket somebody else will.

The best way to fight this is a boycott like so:

In a large coordinated effort, a group of individuals buy out a few flights via Refundable Unrestricted tickets. It's a little more expensive, but when you cancel, the airline doesn't get your money. Cancel your tickets the day of the flight, as close to departure time as you can, and cite your reasons as intrusive security. It has to be done as a coordinated group effort.

The more people and flights you can boycott, the more the Airlines and the Government will sit up and take notice.

The no-fly period after 9/11 nearly Bankrupted the Airline industry. You cannot realistically boycott the airlines as a whole, but you can boycott individual flights. Preferably the most expensive long distance flights. Do it enough, and they will notice.

[carnitine]

10:32 AM on 11/21/2010

I think it's beyond ridicules that people think they have a right to fly. It's a privilege. Don't like their rules don't fly. if the TSA were doing these procedures every time i walked out my house then that is one thing.

[stonewalker]

02:11 PM on 11/22/2010

Don't be so quick to throw a right under the bus. We have the right to travel, as has been decided in numerous SCOTUS cases.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Shapiro_v._Thompson
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Shapiro_v._Thompson

One wouldn't have to reach to far to say that the right to travel encompasses the right to travel in reasonable, commonly used methods of travel, such as flying and driving.

What you aren't considering is that regardless of whether or not we have a right to travel, we *absolutely* have a right to be free from searches and seizures without Probable Cause. The 4th amendment says our government cannot shake down it's citizens without probable cause, period. We've allowed this to happen to make us feel safer while we fly, but nobody even thinks about the Bill of Rights anymore.

I'm not saying we shouldn't screen people and their baggage before flights... but every single person who gets screened should understand the cost of sacrificing that right. The TSA is really there to remind us sheep who is in charge. Remember, they caught exactly ZERO terrorists.

[casley]

04:34 PM on 11/17/2010

I find it difficult to understand why there are body scanners and enhanced pat-downs at U.S. airports. In the past nine years there have been 20, or by some lists, up to 30 instances of foiled terrorist activity. Not even one of these instances involved someone boarding a plane from a U.S. airport, domestic or international. What need is there for scanners and pat-downs when previous airport security measures clearly worked well?

[eric14]

02:59 PM on 11/17/2010

More interest in stopping this process than addressing causes of terrorism does not reflect rationality in the political culture.

Wouldn't you like a situation where the threat was lowered? Addressing effects is avoidance. Deal with the United States unswerving devotion to killing people in far away places. Terrorism is caused by terrorizing. Might help wash some of that blood off your hands.

Being felt for security is a big deal. Try dealing with drones coming at you.

And yes, it's on my hands too.

[dbmetzger]

02:37 PM on 11/17/2010

John Tyner Talks about His Pat-Down Refusal
John Tyner has gained some instant recognition with his now viral statement "don't touch my junk." He talks to the CBC about his refusal to submit to a security pat-down that he said was sexual assault. http://www.newslook.com/videos/266840-john-tyner-talks-about-his-pat-down-refusal?autoplay=true

[Leonard Bradshaw]

02:07 PM on 11/17/2010

Honestly, there's a huge issue nowadays with people (both men and women) uploading and sending photos of themselves and their exposed "junk" to complete strangers on the Internet. I bet many of these same people are the ones complaining about a headless, black and white silhouette of their bodies being viewed in private for security purposes. Either that or it's the guys with microscopic "junk" and the women with over-sized "junk in their trunk" who are complaining the most.

[squirrely girl]

04:58 PM on 11/22/2010

So a person who CHOOSES to share parts of their bodies with others loses all rights about when and with whom they wish to share it? Do you also believe once a woman is no longer a virgin she can't be raped? Seriously... think through what you're saying here.

Just because I expose my body to my husband doesn't mean I want to expose it to anybody else.

[independentcynic1228]

02:03 PM on 11/17/2010

When you see police officers commenting that if they conducted the same type of pat down without a warrant they would be in jail, it makes you pause and wonder who gave the TSA such authority. This is a violation of the fourth amendment of the highest order, either be photographed naked or be molested. Oh, and your child, who you have taught since they were toddlers not to let anyone touch thethem without permission, well they have to be fondled and molested because they are a threat. Yes, this is America in 2010. 9/11 really did change things didn't it, including the very foundation of our laws. Innocent until Proven Guilty is now Guilty until you could prove your innocent. Also you have to love the TSA admitting they are violating the fourth amendment but thats just too bad. I saw a good cartoon that sums it up well, a childrens book by the TSA "My first Cavity search: Explaining to your children why they are a threat to national security."
Oh, and for those who say take a bus or drive, well aren't those priveleges too? So when the first car bomb goes off, are you going to be ok when you have to get strip searched everytime you get in your car? When do you finally say its enough?

[baba2nde]

12:12 PM on 11/17/2010

I will refuse porno scanners, I will refuse pat downs, but I will volunteer to strip down to my birth suit so that everybody - passengers, crew, scanners, TSA staff and Michael Chertoff - can see that I have nothing to hide. Cool?

[dbmetzger]

11:59 AM on 11/17/2010

Body Scan Refusal Sparks Debate on Privacy v. Security
The refusal of air traveller John Tyner to go through an airport security body scanner has given rise to an internet sensation, and has the US government defending the controversial machines. http://www.newslook.com/videos/266893-body-scan-refusal-sparks-debate-on-privacy-v-security?autoplay=true

[HeevenSteven]

11:47 AM on 11/17/2010

Where are all the tea-baggers protesting government over-reach, or government takeover of airlines??

[SAdams1987]

03:36 PM on 11/17/2010

Right here! This is big government at it's worst. Isn't this something that we can all agree on?

[Sidney Vaught]

11:05 AM on 11/17/2010

I agree, this is outrageous. It always boils down to the dollar. I'll never buy another airline ticket as long as I live if this keeps up. I gave up flying four years ago because I was nearly arrested by the TSA over my Dr. Scholl's gel inserts in my shoes. After that, I swore I'd never fly again and I haven't.

For me, it's feasible not to fly because all my friends and family no longer live in far off areas but it is hard for people who do have friends and family across the continent or in foreign countries.

[NoFactsJustTruth]

10:37 AM on 11/17/2010

Porno-scanners (images already leaked) or sexual molestation means I'll not be flying ANYWHERE anytime for personal travel - EVER. They're obviously trying to make more airlines go bankrupt to create bigger monopolies or something, and I hope people refusing to fly means TSA loses a lot of jobs!

If work forces me to fly, however, I'll insist on the molestation and then go out of my way to make that person embarrassed and dirty with phrases like, "You probably get off on this filthy groping and molesting of folks, don't you?"
There's no law against that ...yet.

[marthamothra]

10:23 AM on 11/17/2010

Don't remember where I read it -- a comedy piece -- but the suggestion was that screening should involve each person stepping into a compartment that would blow up any device on you. THAT WOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEM. All us innocents would pass through and all the terrorists would be blown up (without a trial).

[justkeepswimming]

11:04 AM on 11/17/2010

Colbert said it best: if you refuse screening they should detonate you as they would any suspicious parcel. If you turn out not to be carrying explosive devices, your remains will be swept into a duffel bag and transported in the cargo hold to your original destination. Of course, since you're now checking an additional bag, you will be charged $25.