DISASTER Want Boiling Blood? Watch TSA Screener Accost 3 Year Old Girl at Security Checkpoint

Ragnarok

On and On, South of Heaven
I requested the initial thread be closed since no one was willing to start a new thread about DUI ckpnts so I opened one myself in TIO where everything is permitted. There were very few responses when the whole world could no longer admire the replies.

Here's that thread: http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?t=368314

Maureen :dstrs:

No, there were no more replies because it had been talked to death and no one was interested in starting it up, again.

The premise is, exactly, the same and everyone saw you for what you were in that thread.

Thanks for posting it, again. I hope folks take the time to read it before replying here.

She bet some co-workers that the folks here would willingly submit to random traffic checkpoints.

Did I say that?

What's that you like to say?

"AYUP"

OK, I lost the bet that I started this thread for, although I definitely want to see each and every one of us drive safely.

No one asked yet, but I'll offer what the wager was about.

Do Americans value theirs and their loved ones lives enough to give up 5-10 minutes for a routine T-stop?

I wagered we would value our lives, our loved ones and our fellow travelers enough.

My colleagues laughed and said "kid, you're on." And I lost. The reason I chose TB is because I trust most of you to tell the truth after being here all these years. And you did.

I wanted so badly to be right, and I counted on you guys to tell the truth. My colours have never changed and they never will. I've just thrown away my rose-coloured glasses, that were obstructing my view it looks like.

I wanted so badly to be able to say I was right, people DO care enough to "suffer silently" a few moments inconvenience if it helped them or others have a safe journey.

As far as the "bet" goes, I was:

1. Bragging about you to my older colleagues and telling them you were all preppers; respectful; (yes a bit raucous); intelligent; patriotic; loving and responsible family folk, and would not mind ONE bit if you were T-stopped (for PC) and then sent on your way with a "drive safe now!," as I always do because you valued yourselves, families and other drivers very much.

2. This banter went on for days until finally *I* proposed the wager. My "guys" at TB are every bit as dedicated as I say they are, I said, and then Applebee's came up.

3. I was proud of you--bottom line--and believed you would not object to an officer pulling you over for a lost license plate, broken headlamp, speeding, etc. if it made travel safer for us all. I believed you were big enough men and women to accept your (earned) cite and move on with life wiser.

Then *I* threw the monkey wrench into it by citing as an example "DUI checkpoint." This thread instantly shifted to hell on earth and I am woman enough to take my share of that blame by using ckpnts as an example. It may not have mattered what example I used, though.

I'm not sorry because I paid for a $200 gift certificate, I'm sorry about why I had to. I'm sorry I held you all in such high regard, and I'm sorry I had such glowing things to say about some of you. Mostly, I'm sorry that I looked at life with unrealistic eyes. I doubt I'll make that mistake again.
But I have NOTHING else to be sorry for.

All your words, Maureen.

Funny, how you still haven't denied this is another sick departmental joke...

:screw:
 

MaureenO

Another Infidel
No, there were no more replies because it had been talked to death and no one was interested in starting it up, again.

The premise is, exactly, the same and everyone saw you for what you were in that thread.

Thanks for posting it, again. I hope folks take the time to read it before replying here.

(I hope so, too.)

What's that you like to say?

"AYUP"

Quote:
OK, I lost the bet that I started this thread for, although I definitely want to see each and every one of us drive safely.

No one asked yet, but I'll offer what the wager was about.

Do Americans value theirs and their loved ones lives enough to give up 5-10 minutes for a routine T-stop?

(Do I say anywhere here anything about safety or DUI ckpnts?)

I wagered we would value our lives, our loved ones and our fellow travelers enough.


My colleagues laughed and said "kid, you're on." And I lost. The reason I chose TB is because I trust most of you to tell the truth after being here all these years. And you did.

I wanted so badly to be right, and I counted on you guys to tell the truth. My colours have never changed and they never will. I've just thrown away my rose-coloured glasses, that were obstructing my view it looks like.

I wanted so badly to be able to say I was right, people DO care enough to "suffer silently" a few moments inconvenience if it helped them or others have a safe journey.


As far as the "bet" goes, I was:

1. Bragging about you to my older colleagues and telling them you were all preppers; respectful; (yes a bit raucous); intelligent; patriotic; loving and responsible family folk, and would not mind ONE bit if you were T-stopped (for PC) and then sent on your way with a "drive safe now!," as I always do because you valued yourselves, families and other drivers very much.

2. This banter went on for days until finally *I* proposed the wager. My "guys" at TB are every bit as dedicated as I say they are, I said, and then Applebee's came up.

3. I was proud of you--bottom line--and believed you would not object to an officer pulling you over for a lost license plate, broken headlamp, speeding, etc. if it made travel safer for us all. I believed you were big enough men and women to accept your (earned) cite and move on with life wiser.

Then *I* threw the monkey wrench into it by citing as an example "DUI checkpoint." This thread instantly shifted to hell on earth and I am woman enough to take my share of that blame by using ckpnts as an example. It may not have mattered what example I used, though.


I'm not sorry because I paid for a $200 gift certificate, I'm sorry about why I had to. I'm sorry I held you all in such high regard, and I'm sorry I had such glowing things to say about some of you. Mostly, I'm sorry that I looked at life with unrealistic eyes. I doubt I'll make that mistake again.
But I have NOTHING else to be sorry for."

All your words, Maureen.

Funny, how you still haven't denied this is another sick departmental joke...

:screw:

Ayup. Every one of those quoted words are mine and I bolded most them. I meant all of them, too. Dead people who are dead due to the reckless, excessive speed, medically or drug/alcohol impaired drivers actions are just as dead as the kids who fall off their roofs. All those can be prevented and this is no game.

Maureen :dstrs:
 

Ragnarok

On and On, South of Heaven
Yeah.

I'm done here.

You still haven't denied, after repeated chances, that this isn't another set-up.

And between this thread and the other, people can clearly see what you are all about.

Your words speak for themselves and your prior actions drown those words out.
 
Please tell me:

How am I supposed to teach my first grade daughter to protect herself from pedophiles inappropriately touching her, when TSA agents are allowed to do the very same thing?


How is a first grader supposed to be able to distinguish between behavior that would land one in jail and on the infamous Sexual Offender Registry, on the one hand, and the so-called "acceptable" touching by a TSA official?


IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ACTIONS OF SEX OFFENDERS CURRENTLY IN JAIL AND THE ACTIONS OF THE TSA IN THE CASE OF THIS CHILD?


And if your answer to the last question is "yes," then please explain to me how you come up with your answer.

Cuz I don't get it.


Amen!
 

Cmdr Don

NASCAR junkie
>>> No where in my posts did I say I agree with TSA's procedures.

True. Yet you continue to defend them.

Think about this for a while - the government was given advance warning by several sources over a 6 month period prior to the 9/11 event. Great detail was given...the only thing missing was the exact targets. The government did nothing.

Now this? How long ago did this happen? What are the odds that any thinking terrorist would attempt to pull off the same feat? Or even a similar feat for that matter.

Now we are getting advance warnings again. Credible ones from credible sources again. What is the government doing? Patting down children and xraying little old ladies! Are they doing anything to protect the new targets indicated by the above sources? No - that will come 10 years AFTER they're attacked by my reckoning.

Why do you defend them? Is it just because you're in law enforcement, or do you truely believe the skys are safer because of these intrusive policies?
 

MaureenO

Another Infidel
>>> No where in my posts did I say I agree with TSA's procedures.

True. Yet you continue to defend them.

Think about this for a while - the government was given advance warning by several sources over a 6 month period prior to the 9/11 event. Great detail was given...the only thing missing was the exact targets. The government did nothing.

Now this? How long ago did this happen? What are the odds that any thinking terrorist would attempt to pull off the same feat? Or even a similar feat for that matter.

Now we are getting advance warnings again. Credible ones from credible sources again. What is the government doing? Patting down children and xraying little old ladies! Are they doing anything to protect the new targets indicated by the above sources? No - that will come 10 years AFTER they're attacked by my reckoning.

Why do you defend them? Is it just because you're in law enforcement, or do you truely believe the skys are safer because of these intrusive policies?

Your response is clearly off-topic and has become a barrage against one member-me. You're not the only one engaging in this practice and I don't mind even though you're incorrect.

If you want a personal "bash Maureen" thread then start one in TIO and leave the integrity of this one alone for the OP's sake.

Maureen :dstrs:
 

ExcaliBert

Membership Revoked
Your response is clearly off-topic and has become a barrage against one member-me. You're not the only one engaging in this practice and I don't mind even though you're incorrect.

If you want a personal "bash Maureen" thread then start one in TIO and leave the integrity of this one alone for the OP's sake.

Maureen :dstrs:


:prfl:

That made me literally laugh out loud.
Integrity of the thread....
 

Wiley

Membership Revoked
I see a TSA worker in that video that would have been hospitalized if that had been my child.

Yeah, I'm saying I would have beat that POS without mercy for abusing my child. Most likely I would have knocked her ass down even if it were someone else's child.

Some things are worth fighting for and going to jail over, child abuse is certainly one of them.

I can't wait for the day they grab the wrong child and the father shows them the error of their ways and beats the hell out of them... male or female, don't care.
 

Ragnarok

On and On, South of Heaven
Travelers ‘Feel a Little Safer’ Seeing Rape Victim Dragged Across Airport by Police
Jason Ditz, December 23, 2010




In an example of how quickly many members of the public have become not only comfortable with but comforted by the harsh and seemingly arbitrary treatment received by others at the airport, 56-year-old rape victim Claire Hirschkind was hurled to the ground and dragged across the airport by police yesterday, reassuring others that the TSA was right on top of things.

“It makes me feel a little safer,” noted Emily Protine, one of the other travelers who witnessed the arrest, the consequence of Hirschkind not wanting her breasts felt by TSA agents. “It is for our protection so I have no problems with it,” added another witness, one Gwen Washington.

Hirschkind was apparently singled out because she has a pacemaker implanted in her chest, but objected when TSA officials announced they intended to feel her breasts. When she argued there was no due cause “the police actually pushed me to the floor, handcuffed me,” Hirschkind report, prompting the extreme comfort of fellow would-be passengers Washington and Protine.

The TSA insisted that Hirschkind’s arrest and her treatment were perfectly in keeping with their orders, and an airport spokesman added that she had the option to “not fly” if she objected to having her breasts groped. The TSA added that only about 3 percent of travelers are actually subjected to the treatment. The other 97 just get to feel a little safer because they didn’t get singled out.
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2010/12...rape-victim-dragged-across-airport-by-police/




Austin TX news video
Woman Arrested for Refusing To Be Groped By TSA at Austin Airport
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3UWSgGI2TQ
 

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________
And people wonder how "regular Germans" could put up with and allow Nazi atrocities.


There ya go.....
 

mandatroy

Member
Dennis, I love you. thanks for keeping my thread alive.

Not bad for the person whose been in the corner here daily since pre-y2k. I reminisce about the P**L M**ne Rusty hubcap, 7-eleven toast Days here of last century.

If ya'll don't
remember this, you're wet behind the ears when it comes to TB2K history! Member since Gary North's strike anywhere matches shortage.--and before.

m. TROY
 

Tucson Sal

Veteran Member
Please keep us on top of this story - about the woman being dragged across the airport and arrested because she didn't want a pat down. I imagine there is more to it.
 

Tucson Sal

Veteran Member
Ragnarok

Keep us up to date on this latest information - I would like to see links and if what you posted was confirmed I'd like to see the real story. Thanks a Lot for all of your research - although a lot of it doesn't add up.
 

Vicki

Girls With Guns Member
and the other passengers "felt safer" after watching her being dragged handcuffed across the floor because she didn't want her breasts felt up. What in the h*ll is wrong with people!!!!!

I would of said something, you betcha I would of. I refuse to fly as well because of this BS. What happened to my country? What happened to common decency and standing up for what's right? Security my butt!

Can you tell tht ticked me off? :(
 

Ragnarok

On and On, South of Heaven
Ragnarok

Keep us up to date on this latest information - I would like to see links and if what you posted was confirmed I'd like to see the real story. Thanks a Lot for all of your research - although a lot of it doesn't add up.

Austin, TX news video
Woman Arrested for Refusing To Be Groped By TSA at Austin Airport

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3UWSgGI2TQ

Can you tell that ticked me off? :(

Good!





Bottom line is, the .gov doesn't give a %^&* about what you think.




Napolitano: Get Used to Airport Pat-Downs
Published December 26, 2010


WASHINGTON -- The use of full-body scanners and invasive pat-downs at airports around the U.S. will not change for the "foreseeable future," Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said in an interview broadcast Sunday.

While saying that she is always looking to improve the security systems in place, Napolitano added that the new technology and the pat-downs were "objectively safer for our traveling public."

Napolitano dismissed a recent news report about major airports failing secret tests designed to get contraband such as guns and knives past security screeners. The report said some airports had a 70 percent failure rate.

"Many of them are very old and out of date and there were all kinds of methodology issues with them. Let's set those aside," she said on "State of the Union" on CNN. "We pick up more contraband with the new procedures and the new machinery."

Napolitano defended the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, who didn't know about a roundup of terrorist suspects in Britain when asked about the arrests on ABC News earlier this week. The gaffe created an awkward moment for the man in charge of the nation's intelligence community.

Napolitano and President Barack Obama's homeland security adviser, John Brennan, appeared on the show with Clapper. They said Clapper had been preoccupied with handling problems on the Korean peninsula and passage of a nuclear weapons treaty with Russia.

Napolitano said in the CNN interview that homeland security officials were fully aware what was happening in Britain.

"Well, let's be fair," she said. "I knew. John Brennan knew ... So one of the things I think that should be very clear to the American people is that those of us in homeland security who needed to know, we knew."

Officials have said that Clapper hadn't been briefed on the headline-making arrests before being interviewed on ABC News.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/26/napolitano-used-airport-pat-downs/
 

DrJerry

Inactive
Last month I went back to my native Germany on business. (Job offer/interview, I declined) I was in a bad accident a while back and I have a lot of metal rods in me. I carried a lot of medical papers with me because I knew I would set off metal detectors. They waved a wand over me whatever that does, then had me stand in front of the Imaging Machine forward and back with my hands in the air. I think all it did was demonstrate I am not a Jew.
 

ainitfunny

Saved, to glorify God.
Can we do a poll on who thinks it's ok versus who doesn't?

I will go on record as saying I DO NOT THINK THE TSA is doing ANYTHING "OK". Homeland security is a dirty, expensive joke, at our expense. It is a repugnant, offensive odor, antithetical to all America is supposed to represent. It is contemptible, really.
 

noroses4u2c

Contributing Member
The problem is YOUR permissiveness to "feel you up" is also giving your passive permission to feel up 3 year olds screaming "DON'T TOUCH ME THERE!" And doing that shit AIN'T RIGHT!!!!!!!!


Mrs.Cw

This teaches children that their bodies are not their own and that they do not have the right to not have someone giving them bad touches whenever he/she feels like it. So much for the bad touch/good touch lessons that kids were taught years ago. They now must have fingers and other objects inserted into their private areas for the good of other people.
 

Ragnarok

On and On, South of Heaven
Security Theatre Creep: Full Strength X-Ray Body Scanners Touted For Airports
Trials begin for devices that can scan your insides, deep penetrating radiation scans cause 15,000 deaths per year
Steve Watson
March 1, 2011



The next generation of body scanners to be rolled out in airports will literally be able to see inside the human body, as security personnel gear up to trial machines that use deep penetrating radiation, the same kind hospitals use to examine internal organs and bones.

Australian airports are set to begin using the devices should legislation before Federal Parliament be passed, enabling customs officers to use technology previously only operated by doctors in controlled conditions.
http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/...gy/story-e6frfq80-1226011075259#ixzz1F0BLHpfi

The justification for the technology is to crack down on suspected drug smugglers who swallow illegal substances to evade airport security. However, the notion of placing the technology along airport security lines paves the way for its general use, particularly in light of the recent security theatre explosion we have seen in airports over the last eighteen months.

The current crop of naked body scanners being used by the TSA and other transport security personnel around the globe use either Millimeter-wave or BackScatter radiation. These devices render clothing and organic materials translucent, providing an image of what is concealed underneath, which is why they have caused such controversy.

The radiation fired from those scanners does not penetrate beyond the tissue under the skin, nevertheless there have been significant and legitimate fears expressed by experts and scientists over the safety of such devices, as far as both the operator and the traveler are concerned.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...r-radiation-dose-20-times-higher-thought.html

The force generated from tetrahertz waves used by the millimeter-wave scanners is small but, according to scientists, the waves can ‘unzip’ or tear apart double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the DNA that could interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication.
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24331/

Despite further warnings from scientists that the scanners will cause cancer in some travelers, it seems our governments are ready to push even further and use even more potentially lethal technology, under the guise of security.
http://www.naturalnews.com/files/TSA_Naked_Body_Scanners.pdf

Of course, there is a very good reason why internal X-ray scans are only legally permitted to be carried out by a doctor at a hospital or surgery – because they are extremely hazardous and can cause detrimental health effects to those exposed to them.

Radiography and Tomography scanners fire deep penetrating ionizing x-rays. The most recent studies estimated that CT scanners cause 29,000 cancers and kill nearly 15,000 Americans every year. Imagine how that number would balloon if such technology were installed in airports and used everyday on millions of healthy people, as if they were routine metal detectors.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/will_die_from_ct_scans_i6rljI0YALLNdfFIzyHUtJ

Yet, there is every indication that this will be the case. In January 2010, following the failed underpants bombing, former European Commissioner for Justice, Freedom & Security, Franco Frattini, told the media that governments should consider scanning the insides of all travelers to make sure they are not concealing explosives or weapons. It now seems that what at the time seemed a stretch beyond the realms of sanity is actually happening before our eyes.
http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne+News/World/Story/A1Story20100105-189891.html

Recent security failures concerning the current crop of naked body scanners, many of which stem from human error, and the fact that the scanners are simply incapable of identifying some materials, will no doubt also be used as justification should the US and the UK follow the actions of the Australian authorities in attempting to beef security theatre in airports even further.
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local-be...gh-DFW-Body-Scanner-With-a-Gun-116497568.html

Of course, none of this matters to the scores of security contractors making fat profits from government contracts. The military industrial complex cares little if a few million people drop dead from cancer or pass on genetic defects. The only health worries they have concern their profit margins.

At the end of the day, however, the buck stops with the public on this. Overall apathy toward the rollout of highly invasive and potentially dangerous naked body scanning machines in airports, has only paved the way for more excessive violations of our rights and our liberties.

As we have consistently highlighted, there are even more frightening scenarios down the road if we continue to ignore the open tyranny being implemented all around us. If the public willingly accepts naked imaging x-ray machines that will cause cancer and death, all in the name of security, what comes next?

The TSA is considering taser bracelets that can deliver electric shocks to anyone who steps out of line inside an airport or on a plane.

Passport control officers at airports are to be phased out as new biometric face scanning cameras are replacing them under UK border control measures that came into force last year. A global biometric facial scan database is the end goal of security authorities the world over.

Other proposals include placing the cameras in every seat on aircraft and installing software to try and automatically detect terrorists or other dangers caused by passengers.

Passive brain scanners that pick up brain waves in order to sense the behaviour of travelers have already been trialed in airports. The technology known as “MALINTENT” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...0/New-airport-screening-could-read-minds.html has been developed by the Department of Homeland Security under a project lovingly called “Project Hostile Intent”. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/09/no_not_the_mind_probe_again/ The following image is a DHS Impression of the mindreader technology in action.

060110scanner8.jpg


We are also being incrementally taught that what goes on in the airports will be transferred to the streets, schools, shopping malls, rail stations and bus terminals.

The very body scanners we see being implemented within airports now have already been extensively trialed and are now being in railway stations in major cities.

The same technology is being considered by governments for general use in cameras on the street. Once accepted as part of everyday life in airports, it becomes much easier to sell for use in all public places.

The development of all of this nightmare technology only emphasizes the need for immediate outright rejection of the mass implementation of all forms of body screeners. If we continue to allow such gross attacks on our liberties to succeed the onslaught will never end.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/securit...-x-ray-body-scanners-touted-for-airports.html
 

Ragnarok

On and On, South of Heaven
Bill Would Make Some Airport Screening Sexual Assault
Those Convicted Would Be Required To Register As Sex Offenders
http://www.wmur.com/r/27035604/detail.htmlx
Email





CONCORD, N.H. -- Lawmakers and residents engaged in heated debate Tuesday over a bill that would make random airport security pat-downs and body scans criminal in New Hampshire.

The bill (HB628-FN) "makes the touching or viewing with a technological device of a person’s breasts or genitals by a government security agent without probable cause a sexual assault," according to the introductory text of the bill.

"Let's put their name on the sex offender registry, and maybe that will tell them New Hampshire means business," said bill co-sponsor Rep. Andrew Manuse, R-Derry.

"That is a crime in this state, and we should charge them every single time," said bill co-sponsor Rep. George Lambert, R-Litchfield.

It wasn't a large crowd in support of the bill, but the support was passionate. Concord's Darren Tapp said security procedures cost him a trip home for the holidays in December.

"This time, the news is talking about enhanced pat-downs," he said. "I cried on the phone with my mother that I did not wish to submit to enhanced pat-downs."

Transportation Security Administration officials would not comment on the proposed legislation except to say that security checkpoints are under federal jurisdiction. Some members of the Criminal Justice Committee said that it is a federal issue.

"We have to understand that if things need to be changed, they have to be done at the federal level, not the state level," said Rep. Laura Pantelakos, D-Portsmouth.

Some backers of the bill said TSA needs to do away with random screenings altogether and instead search only those passengers who look or act suspicious. But others said that would raise the problem of profiling.

Boston-Manchester Regional Airport does not have the controversial body scanners that can see through a person's clothes.


FULL TEXT OF BILL (AS OF 3/1/2011):
AN ACT making the touching or viewing with a technological device of a person’s breasts or genitals by a government security agent without probable cause a sexual assault.

SPONSORS: Rep. Lambert, Hills 27; Rep. Manuse, Rock 5; Rep. L. Jones, Straf 1; Rep. Itse, Rock 9; Rep. Sapareto, Rock 5

COMMITTEE: Children and Family Law

ANALYSIS
This bill makes the touching or viewing with a technological device of a person’s breasts or genitals by a government security agent without probable cause a sexual assault. This bill classifies persons convicted of the offense as tier III offenders under the criminal offenders registry.

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Eleven
AN ACT making the touching or viewing with a technological device of a person’s breasts or genitals by a government security agent without probable cause a sexual assault. Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 New Subparagraph; Sexual Assault; Touching or Viewing by Government Security Agent. Amend RSA 632-A:4, I by inserting after subparagraph (c) the following new subparagraph:

(d) When the person, acting in his or her role as a security agent of the federal, state, or local government, touches the genitals or breasts of any other person or touches or views with any technological device the genitals or breasts of any other person without probable cause for such touching or viewing. For purposes of this subparagraph, the following shall not constitute probable cause: discussing or possessing a copy of the Constitution, discussing the security apparatus of an airport, being on the premises of an airport, possessing an airplane ticket or any other type of ticket for access to mass transportation, driving a motor vehicle on a public way, or ownership of firearms.

2 Registration of Criminal Offenders; Definitions; Sexual Offense. Amend RSA 651-B:1, V(a) to read as follows: (a) Capital murder, RSA 630:1, I(e); first degree murder, RSA 630:1-a, I(b)(1); aggravated felonious sexual assault, RSA 632-A:2; felonious sexual assault, 632-A:3; sexual assault, 632-A:4, I(a), RSA 632-A:4, I(d), or RSA 632-A:4, III; violation of privacy, RSA 644:9, I(a) or RSA�644:9, III-a; or a second or subsequent offense within a 5-year period for indecent exposure and lewdness, RSA 645:1, I.

3 Registration of Criminal Offenders; Definitions; Offense Against a Child. Amend RSA 651-B:1, VII(a) to read as follows: (a) Any of the following offenses, where the victim was under the age of 18 at the time of the offense: capital murder, RSA 630:1, I(e); first degree murder, RSA 630:1-a, 1(b)(1); aggravated felonious sexual assault, RSA 632-A:2; felonious sexual assault, RSA 632-A:3; sexual assault, RSA�632-A:4, I(a), RSA 632-A:4, I(d), or RSA 632-A:4, III; kidnapping, RSA 633:1; criminal restraint, RSA 633:2; false imprisonment, RSA 633:3; incest, RSA 639:2; violation of privacy, RSA�644:9, I(a) or RSA 644:9, III-a; a second or subsequent offense within a 5-year period for indecent exposure and lewdness, RSA 645:1, I; indecent exposure and lewdness, RSA 645:1, II and RSA 645:1, III; or prostitution, RSA 645:2.

4 Registration of Criminal Offenders; Definitions; Tier III Offender. Amend RSA 651-B:1, X(a) to read as follows: (a) RSA 630:1, I(e), RSA 630:1-a, I(b)(1), RSA 632-A:2, RSA 632-A:3, III, RSA 632-A:3, IV if the victim was under the age of 13, RSA 632-A:4, I(d), RSA 633:1; or RSA 639:2.

5 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 90 days after its passage.

LBAO
11-0798
01/19/11
HB 628-FN - FISCAL NOTE
AN ACT making the touching or viewing with a technological device of a person’s breasts or genitals by a government security agent without probable cause a sexual assault.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Due to time constraints, the Office of Legislative Budget Assistant is unable to provide a fiscal note for this bill at this time. When completed, the fiscal note will be forwarded to the House Clerk's Office.
 

undead

Veteran Member
The leftists over at the Huffington Post think that the TSA is the greatest thing since sliced bread.


Libs of today are nothing like the liberals of the 60's.


They're a bunch of control freaks.



:kk1:
 

Dozdoats

On TB every waking moment
IF getting on a commercial airliner is so dangerous that it requires all this security theater, then it's just flat too dangerous to fly, period.

Therefore I will no longer fly commercial until some semblance of American normality returns to US airports.

Starve the beast...

dd
 

Woody

Inactive
Some backers of the bill said TSA needs to do away with random screenings altogether and instead search only those passengers who look or act suspicious. But others said that would raise the problem of profiling.

Let's recount exactly who's been responsible for 95+ % of the terror attacks in the last, oh, 10 years shall we?

Hint: They don't carry names like "Smith" or "Jones," and they don't wear diapers.

Oh, and it's not profiling, it's simple statistics.

IF getting on a commercial airliner is so dangerous that it requires all this security theater, then it's just flat too dangerous to fly, period.

Therefore I will no longer fly commercial until some semblance of American normality returns to US airports.

True, and I also won't fly because the security is too intrusive with no tangible benefit. I didn't ask for it and I don't want it.

Try groping me and I might grope back :groucho:
 
Top