Brickbat: Pleased to Make Your Acquaintance


TSA search
Lannis Waters/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom

Evelyn Harris, 65, had just gone through the security scanner at Baltimore-Washington International Marshall Airport when a Transportation Security Administration agent pulled her out of line, grabbed her by the throat, and groped her underneath her bra and inside her underwear. She later called the TSA to complain but was told the search was proper because she was wearing a pantyliner. The agent she spoke to said that since a 2009 incident in which someone tried to ignite a bomb in his underwear they have been vigilant about people hiding stuff in their crotch.

NEXT: California Road-Tax Hike Is Really A Pension Tax

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. "Never in my life did I ever think that as an American citizen I would be subject to this kind of racial profiling and scrutiny," Trankiem said. "It makes me fearful of the climate of our country and where we are headed."

    It's not too late to turn back, America.

    If we want to blame the new president for the TSA, by all means let us pretend onerous security theater is unique to the Trump era if that's what it takes to wake those not woke to it.

  2. But the invasive and humiliating search she'd endured bothered her. So she filed a complaint a few weeks after the incident.

    The Transportation Security Administration investigator who called her back told her the agency saves videos of screenings, but only for 30 days. At that point, it was too late. The search had been erased.

    Mmmm....... Ida Know.

    Agent grabbed her by the throat, unannounced, and forcibly shoved her hand under her underwear and bra? Apparently felt around inside her labia, although that part is unclear (might catch something if she didn't change gloves)? And she was too afraid to look at a nameplate?

    Ida Know.

    Sounds like it might be a little embellished. Like maybe they did check her panty liner.

    1. I totally believe this propaganda.

      1. Slippery slope may be a deductive fallacy, true, but it isn't an inductive fallacy.

        In other words, I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised.

  3. If McDonald's hired a security service that provided thug security guards, you wouldn't get anywhere complaining to the security service but you'd get some fast action by complaining to McDonald's. If the airlines get enough complaints to put some pressure on the government-monopoly airport, the TSA can be exposed to some market pressures.

    1. Seriously? What are the airlines going to do? Stop paying the TSA until they stop abusing passengers? Boycott government airports? They can't do anything. They've got to suck it up just like everyone else. Hooray freedom!

      1. Security screening at airports was privately run. Then the Democrats decided that they needed another huge chunk of federal employee union members. Some horse trading ensued, and in order to get what he wanted, W. gave them their new federal agency - sans union memberships. (for the moment).

        And we are all the poorer for it.

  4. Awesome article. I'm most definitely interest in this one. I am in reality happy with article quality and direction. This post is spot on in informative how some ideology applies to any script location. Thanks a lot for preservation huge stuff. I am extremely a good deal grateful used intended for this place. Thanks a lot for protection massive things. Visit here:

    1. Looks like the bots are reconsidering their abandonment of Hit and Run.

      1. Bots get through but the squirrels stash my comments in the ether.

    2. >essay fraud service

      >terribad spelling and grammar

  5. Trump's America.

    1. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

  6. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] 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.

    Guess I missed the part of the article where the constitution was followed.

    1. That old thing? C'mon, be realistic, we gotta be safe all the time, regardless of the cost.

      Or effectiveness.

      Or morality.

    2. Pretty sure the SCOTUS would consider these searches to be reasonable. Or maybe, "Ma'm you can't get on your plane until we find a judge and get a warrant issued and get it down here. You might want to re-book your flight until tomorrow while we are waiting."

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.