USA-specific: TSA enhanced pat-down

[crfriend]

[...] "BUT" when A protest interfers with the flight schedule of others including myself so our flights are delayed potentially missing connections and arriving later than planned then I draw a line against such conduct.

I see we are actually in wide agreement on this, and I was rather put off by the notion of the protest further screwing up an already screwed-up system. Five-nines (or better) of the passengers that fly on any given day are just folks trying to get from one point to another on an already unpleasant conveyance; they do not need -- or deserve -- to have an additional hassle on the way.

The TSA do not care about the protest, nor do the airlines. They do not have to because they have no skin in the game. The only victims in this are Joe and Joanne Public. Harrying the already harried is just plain bad behaviour.

Now, if a substantial portion of the daily passenger load decided to "vote with their feet" and stayed away from the gate in the first place and opted for alternate transport the airlines themselves would sit up and take notice pretty darned quickly and put some real pressure in places where it'd actually do some good.

Moderator note: I opted to move this into the "Off Topic" forum because it's not particularly on-topic for "Skirts and Kilts for men". This was an organisational decision, not an editorial one.

[DALederle]

The protest, that was scheduled for the Weds. before Thanksgiving never materialized. At least not here in Chicago at O'Hare, one of the busiest airports in the world. Our newsmedia were all over this as a story for days before and on Weds. itself. NO visible slow downs at the big airport for passengers.
I still don't know why they waste our time on this silliness. It is all show and no go as far as actually doing anything useful.
But what does bother me is reports that Islamic women, in hijab and/or burka (truthfully I don't know the exact difference between them) are getting special treatment. They are being asked ONLY to reveal their faces and are going through unchecked and un-scanned.
If this is true, and I have heard only 2nd hand accounts, then that bothers me. A lot!
Maybe everyone should show up in burkas at the airport.
Won't the media love that?
BUt would the media even begin to understand the message in that kind of action?
People have been sold a real bill of goods on all of this. It seems to be, to me, aimed at spreading around more government control of our personal lives.
Personally, if I can't carry my gun around with me I'm not interested in their security! THEY don't want you to know that THEY CAN'T protect you and never could.

Dennis A. Lederle

[David]

This topic persuaded me to finally register in the forum. I flew from South Carolina to New York on the 28th of October. I believe that this was the first day of the enhanced pat-downs, although I did not realize it at the time. I was wearing a top of the knee cap length black skirt which was converted from a pair of wide cut cargo shorts. I was singled out during the security check and directed to the pat-down line where a male TSA agent had me stand in two or three different positions, with arms outstretched, as he performed a front handed body search both above and below my waist. At no time was my "junk" touched. The ordeal was inconvenient; but, what bothered me even more was the "that's what you get for wearing a skirt" look on my wife's face as she watched from a distance. In retrospect, I doubt that male TSA employees are trained to perform pat-downs on skirted travelers. This guy must have been out of his element and he did his best to perform what he felt was an adequate search. He was probably more uncomfortable with the pat-down than I was and may even have been mocked by his fellow employees after I departed.

I passed right through airport security without event on the return flight because it was wearing pants (it was 39 degrees F when woke up that morning).

[crfriend]

[...] The ordeal was inconvenient; but, what bothered me even more was the "that's what you get for wearing a skirt" look on my wife's face as she watched from a distance.

Quite probably, there was no connection between your attire and your "selection" for "enhanced attention". It's worth noting that those who may harbour malintent try very hard to blend in and not appear "out of the ordinary" in any way. There is also the fact that the kilt is an accepted male garment, and that lots of folks may get confused when presented with a skirt and confuse it with a kilt.

In retrospect, I doubt that male TSA employees are trained to perform pat-downs on skirted travelers.

I would suspect that women TSA screeners are trained in such things, and in sensitivity in dealing with other women so attired. Guys are (rightly or wrongly) expected to put up with stuff that any self-respecting woman would raise a hue and cry about.

This guy must have been out of his element and he did his best to perform what he felt was an adequate search. He was probably more uncomfortable with the pat-down than I was and may even have been mocked by his fellow employees after I departed.

From some of the things I've read, the TSA folks themselves are rather uncomfortable about current policy, and that if it keeps up the TSA may have a hard time keeping qualified individuals on the payroll. I know that I would not want to endure the endless jokes, lewd comments, verbal jabs, and whatnot whilst just trying to do my job. Statistically speaking, it's highly probable that the overwhelming majority of TSA folks do not "get a kick" out of this.

I passed right through airport security without event on the return flight because it was wearing pants (it was 39 degrees F when woke up that morning).

"Your number didn't come up" on the return. As above, I really suspect that your attire had nothing to do with it.

Welcome to the Cafe, by the way! 'Tis a pity that a thread like this is what "pushed the button" to make you join. How long have you been wearing skirts "out and about" in public settings?

[crfriend]

reports that Islamic women, in hijab and/or burka (truthfully I don't know the exact difference between them) are getting special treatment. They are being asked ONLY to reveal their faces and are going through unchecked and un-scanned.

I would be shocked into incredulity if that was, indeed, the case. Western society, for all its flaws, does have a particular focus on folks being identifiable in their day-to-day activities, and the niqab and burka both contravene that. (The hijab is a head-scarf and does not cover the face; the other two types do.) Interestingly, in many jurisdictions in the USA, the commission of a crime whilst masked carry vastly stiffer penalties than the commission of the same crime whilst bare-faced; for that fact alone, I cannot conceive of the situation portrayed above.

I'd look very closely at the source of these "reports", and any possible agenda the source might have.

[David]

crfriend wrote:
Quite probably, there was no connection between your attire and your "selection" for "enhanced attention". It's worth noting that those who may harbour malintent try very hard to blend in and not appear "out of the ordinary" in any way. There is also the fact that the kilt is an accepted male garment, and that lots of folks may get confused when presented with a skirt and confuse it with a kilt.

I neglected to mention that the airport in question does not have full body scanners. They rely solely upon metal detectors and TSA screener judgment to make security check-in decisions. TSA policy starting that day was that loosely fitting clothing, including skirts, made you a suspect traveler. So I became a suspect traveler, by virtue of my skirt, and the enhanced pat-down was the only TSA option, on this date, at this airport. Unless TSA policy and/or airport screening equipment changes, anyone wearing a skirt at this airport will automatically be subject to an enhanced pat-down. For what it is worth, I would not have dressed differently if I had known the consequences.

crfriend asked:
How long have you been wearing skirts "out and about" in public settings?

My skirt wearing has evolved with time and situations. I started within house confines in July of 2000 and my wife was comfortable with that. About eight years ago I started wear skirts while cutting the lawn, getting the mail, walking the dog, and going shopping alone. This "embarrassed" my wife (her words) and slowed down my outside exposure. About five years ago, I started wearing skirts during our vacations and she was more at ease because we were away from home where nobody recognized us. I continued to wear skirts "out and about" and my wife became more accepting (but not supportive) as most of the neighbors were already aware that I wore skirts. My wife (for 40 years as of last June) is hoping that will be a brief phase in my life. For the past couple of years she has become more tolerant and I have, with very few exceptions, worn nothing but skirts (mainly converted shorts) "out and about" on a daily basis since April of this year. Cooler temperatures may add a wrinkle to the situation since my wife has voiced her disapproval of my wearing long skirts out of the house. In fact, I have only one long skirt that I feel suits me well enough to wear in public. Long skirts will be the subject of a future post.

David

[Since1982]

The enhanced pat-down is quite thororough,

I'm just wondering if this word is pronounced similarly to this>>> thor ror row yore bote gently down the streem! marryly marryly marryly life is boat a dreem.


"thororough" is an interesting looking would be wordish looking thing.

[sapphire]

I've given up flying because it has become such a hassle. I get to the airport 2 hours early and wait. Get to the check in counter and wait again. Take off shoes, out everything on the belt, get scanned, wanded, patted down. Try to reassemble myself, then wait for the plane. Get into the cattle shute to board and then wait. Then the plane waits for takeoff. Eventually, it does take off. Then we wait for landing clearance. Then we wait to get assigned an arrival gate, then we wait in line to get off the plane. Then we wait for our luggage. Then we wait for ground transportation whatever that might be. Heaven help if there is a layover, Just means more waiting.

ANd that's for when nothing unusual is going on. I was once detained because I kept setting off the alarms. My crime? An underwire bra. I offered to take ti off, but they declined.

Traveling with a cat.... well, that's a whole different kettle of fish. They can scan me all they want, wand me, pat me down all they want ONCE the cat is safely in its carrier.

Then there was the time in Paris, where clearly, I was out of place. Denim jumoer, orange t-shirt, sandels, pruple backpack. No souveniers, no photos. And a First Class ticket. The officals sure gave me a hard time. Then they found round oapque things in my very tiny purse. I assured them that those objects were tokens for the Boston subway and they were welcome to take them as souveniers.

Now it's just easier to stay home.
Sapphire

[DALederle]

The worst part of this discussion is that the creeps have won!
The terrorist have forced US into a position of doing something we shouldn't have to be doing. I have heard some people ,who support the current "enhanced" searches, say that they are being fruitful in finding people smugling dope and stolen goods and knives and guns. But what strikes me is that no one has said a single terrorist was found during all this. Isn't that what this is supposed to do? Catch or stop terrorist. Of course it's hard to prove you stopped a terroriest because then he didn't DO anything. But still, there's no claims coming forth that this has caught anyone.
If they had, actually caught a terrorist you would think that they would be telling the media about it! Crowing and patting themselves on the back in public to show us that they were right all along. Instead they keep coming up with lame excuse to treat honest, law abiding citizens like criminals.
Personally I think it just makes them feel good about themselves and does nothing for true security.
It's all in the name of job security (for them) and more money spent by our government, which doesn't need any excuse to spend money it doesn't have for things we don't need!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dennis A. Lederle

p.s. They should quit "profiling" our grandmas!

[Since1982]

One of the # 1 job opportunities for young people fresh out of High School that can not afford to go to college are schools that train Security guards, and other kinds of police oriented positions. We are busily training our poorer young people to work for firms like Wackenhut or Blackwater to staff prisons and jails all over our country AND to work for organizations like the TSA and stick their hands in places no one should have to suffer having stranger's hands at.

These companies are also hiring young people fresh out of military service with experience detaining and searching people. Desensitized men and women who can look on another person as a "thing", not a human like themselves. It's a sad country we are creating for ourselves. We are convincing the real terrorists that they are winning the war of attrition.