TSA Refuses To Allow Husband To Videotape Patdown

When I first heard about the new scanners in airports, I did some research and wrote a column on the topic. By the time all of this happened though, my husband and I had already purchased tickets for a vacation so I knew it was possible that I would have to deal with this myself.

I knew the airport we would take off from Standiford Field, Louisville International Airport which does not have the scanners but our destination, Miami International Airport, does so I realized this could affect me if I was randomly selected.

Well guess who was randomly selected?

I said I was not going in the machine and they said that’s fine, you don’t have to, you can opt out. They directed me through the metal detector and out of the way to wait. The lady at the metal detector yelled out to a group behind her, “We need a female for a pat down!”

I stood there for a minute and nothing happened and she yelled again.

“We have a female pat down!”

I started pacing and she said stay where you are and yelled again for a female pat down. I heard the snap of the rubber gloves and knew someone was finally ready for me.

She had me collect my bag and put it on a table near the pat down area and proceeded to tell me what she was going to do, where she was going to touch me and if it I was okay with the procedure.

I said, “Well, no, it’s not okay for you touch me.”

She looked surprised and nervous and then called a man over. She explained to him that I did not give permission for her to touch me and so she wanted him to be there with her when she did it.

He looked at me and said, “You opted out of the machine so we need to give you a pat-down. If you don’t give us permission, we can escort you out of the airport if you prefer. So do you give permission?”

I said, “No. I might end up accepting a pat down but I want to be very clear that I object to this treatment.”

He said, “You have to have the pat-down if you want to go any further.”

By this time, my husband was behind us waiting for me. I wanted him to video tape the pat down but unfortunately I did not plan ahead and had my camera in my bag.

I said, “Okay I will allow it if my husband can video tape it for my protection. The camera’s in my bag so I need to get it out and give it to him.”

The guy immediately said “NO, you can’t do that.”

He looked at John and said “Back away sir!” like he was some sort of threat just standing there waiting for me.

I asked if it was written somewhere that I can’t videotape this and he said yes, it’s on our site. I had no idea whether it was or not but I continued, “I just don’t understand why you won’t let my husband videotape this for my protection.”

He was getting annoyed now and said “You can’t do it. We don’t know what you will do with the tape. Do you want the terrorists to see how we do a pat-down? Do you want to help the terrorists?”

I started to object again and make some obvious points about how silly that was when he said, “I’m not discussing this with you any more. You can get a pat down or I will call the police to escort you out of this airport. It’s your choice.”

We stared at each other for a minute before I told the lady to do her thing. They asked me if I wanted to do it in private and I said, “No way. I want everyone here to see what you guys are doing to people.”

As the lady was feeling around my breasts, I asked her if she liked her job. She said “Someone’s got to do it.”

(I have since looked on the website and am still not sure if I could have pushed to get the camera to my husband. Anyone know for sure?)

Let's Free Airline Security from TSA Control

COLUMN NOTES: There are several comments at the newspaper's link below where this was originally published if you want to go read those. I really like one person's comments about air travel options. Also, I'm always trying to really find the root causes of issues and this column at antiwar.com really seemed to hammer home how we are playing a part in creating this whole mess.

HARBESON: Put up a fight for flight

> SOUTHERN INDIANA — I remember the first time I had to remove my shoes to get through airport security. While putting them back on, someone joked that eventually we’ll be taking off all our clothes to get through security.

I laughed. But I’m not laughing now.

If you haven’t heard already, body scanner machines, which use X-ray technology to see through your clothes, are rapidly being installed in airports around the country. (Louisville does not have scanners. Yet.)

The body scanners are the latest move in the Transportation Security Administration’s reactionary efforts to provide airline safety. Previous actions like the shoe removal and three-ounce liquid limits were met with some initial protest and derision, but in the end were grudgingly accepted.

However, these new scanners are causing a much greater negative response from varied groups. There are many concerns about these body scanners, from radiation exposure, to privacy and even effectiveness. Yet stimulus funds are pouring into the purchase of these machines sold by companies well-connected to lobbyist groups and government officials.

Currently, passengers can opt out of these “naked” body scanners and several groups are using this opt-out process to organize an educational event. “National Opt Out Day” will be Wednesday. (To learn more about this outreach, go to wewontfly.com.)

Other groups say only a full boycott will do because opting out has its own problems. If you opt out of the scanners, you will be subject to an “enhanced pat down” by TSA personnel. If you’re wondering what “enhanced pat down” means, let’s just say that a rubber-gloved TSA agent will grope the areas your momma always told you never to let a stranger touch.

Worst of all, none of this will really make you safe. The inside of the body remains unseen and you can easily guess what the next step will be for the determined terrorist.

So the question then becomes, what are you willing to subject yourself to next? Will you obediently drink the radioactive Kool-Aid if the government tells you it’s the only way you can be safe?

We already know some people will submit to further intrusions on their body. These people say their safety is worth any preventive measure. And they should be free to submit if they want. But this freedom isn’t extended to everyone which is why we have a problem.

Everyone weighs potential dangers and risks differently. There’s a wide range of what people are willing to accept or not accept as they evaluate the statistical probabilities of certain actions.

But individuals are not allowed to weigh risks and benefits of security measures when it comes to flying. The government has taken complete control. Everyone has to submit to their determination, no matter how misguided, political, ineffective and equally dangerous it might be.

Do we really need and benefit from a government monopoly on airline safety? Why not let airline businesses decide what they want to do for security and then let individual customers decide who to patronize?

No one can predict what creative ideas could come from such freedom and competition. The options could be exactly the same as they are now. But it’s more likely that airline security would be very different as airlines cater to a wide variety of customers and take actions to prove they are indeed safe.

I also can’t help but wonder if the result of such competition would mean that that the airline flights I chose would be full of people who understand they must ultimately be ready to take charge of their own safety. I hope so because those are the types of people I’d want around in the unlikely event a terrorist did make it on my plane.

Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson does not want to opt out of flying because she still hasn’t made it into the Mile High Club.

Rand Paul, Rights and Racism

COLUMN NOTES: I made some local readers quite irritated by bringing up Rosa Parks. One even went so far as to say it was offensive to say she was asserting her personal property rights:

I am sorry I read it. Her take on Rosa Parks is offensive in my opinion. I think Rosa Parks must have been taking a stand against racism...not asserting a 'property right'. Maybe I am wrong but that sounds crazy.

My friend Tom Knapp had this response to this column:

...Current law means that the bigot down the street will hire as many "minorities" as he absolutely has to to get by. He'll promote from within that minority employee pool just enough to not attract government attention. He won't use the n-word, but he'll make black (for example) employees feel like they're in a hostile environment. He'll accept a return from a white customer with no problem, but give a black customer trouble in the same situation.

I'd just as soon he was allowed to put a "NO BLACKS ALLOWED" sign on his front door, because he's just stupid enough to do that. And then I'd know, and he wouldn't get one thin dime of my money, and I'd damn well tell him why. Instead, I'm patronizing the SOB's business without ever knowing that he's a bigot. He's watching a big-screen TV and eating prime rib instead of listening to a transistor radio over a TV dinner because I don't have the information I needed to avoid subsidizing his prejudices.

Finally, although there have been loads of articles, columns, blogs and comments about Rand Paul's comments, I found this question, attributed to Karen De Coster a good one to ponder if you are struggling with the idea of freedom of association:

Does a black businessman have the right to refuse service to a Klan member?

HARBESON: Stay out of my personal space

By DEBBIE HARBESON Local Columnist

> SOUTHERN INDIANA — Newly nominated Kentucky Republican senatorial candidate Rand Paul made comments recently that released a foaming fury of phony concerns. Paul attempted to answer a question about whether or not he supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and in his response he made the point that private businesses should be free to make their own decisions on who they want to serve.

Almost all of the discussion in response only skimmed the surface, using fear tactics and manipulations to make people take sides. If we are going to evolve past this constant polarization, we must do what Henry Thoreau said and “strike at the root.”

The editorial section of the paper across the river opened up the opportunity to do just that. In two separate editorial pieces, the claim was made that Paul was putting “property rights” ahead of “human rights.”

“Human rights” cannot be separated from “property rights.” This is a complete distortion of a very important and basic principle underlying all of our interactions with each other. The people responsible for spreading this viewpoint are trying their best to complicate what is really a very simple principle that defines individual freedom.

At the root, it’s extremely simple: You own yourself. Your human body is your property. You cannot have any freedom if you don’t first acknowledge this property right above all else.

All rights labeled in any other way must have the concept of property rights as its core. Any other property rights are just an extension of this basic premise as each of us labor to justly acquire other property, which includes private businesses.

That’s what Rosa Parks was saying. She protested on a government-subsidized bus that was following a city-government enforced policy that denied her this most basic property right.

She wanted those bigots to know that she owns herself and they had no authority to grant other humans any property rights over their body that superseded hers. Sadly, the government system itself ignored the root principle of human freedom.

Of course, what makes people uncomfortable in this regard is that bigots also own themselves. But if humans have the right to own our own bodies, then we are morally obligated to respect the same property rights for everyone.

Besides, it’s a good thing to let bigots be bigots openly because it’s much easier to find them if they are free to discriminate. That freedom in turn gives others much more power to show we disapprove by taking action, using the freedom of association and refusing to support them. This can only happen if we know who they are and can call them out.

This means you don’t need government in order to take action against bigotry and discrimination. You don’t need government to force business owners to serve wants and needs by providing services and products to anyone who wants to voluntarily trade for them. The smart and savvy business owners will do that without any government involvement, provided the government stays out of the way.

But there are people who simply don’t want you to realize that.

Don’t fall for it when others try to complicate a basic principle. The only reason anyone tries to do this is to polarize, confuse and scare you. Polarized, confused and scared people are easier to control and manipulate.

You still have property rights over your own brain, so far at least. So exercise that right and think for yourself. Take the time to analyze any assertion about rights and private property. Start out by figuring out how it meshes with the primary principle of property rights: self-ownership.

— Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson believes that she owns her body. However, she does sometimes wish she had less property around her midsection.