A San Diego Man at Lindbergh Field Chooses ''Strip-Down'' Over Pat-Down - then was ARRESTED

[Tx4obama]

When a San Diego man opted out of security screening using the Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) at Lindbergh Field Friday, he stripped down to his underwear in an attempt to avoid the pat-down procedures.

SNIP

Through a statement released by his attorney Sunday night, Wolanyk said "TSA needs to see that I'm not carrying any weapons, explosives, or other prohibited substances, I refuse to have images of my naked body viewed by perfect strangers, and having been felt up for the first time by TSA the week prior (I travel frequently) I was not willing to be molested again."

Wolanyk's attorney said that TSA requested his client put his clothes on so he could be patted down properly but his client refused to put his clothes back on. He never refused a pat down, according to his attorney.

Wolanyk was arrested for refusing to complete the security process. A woman, identified by Harbor police as Danielle Kelli Hayman,39, of San Diego was detained for recording the incident on a phone.

SNIP

Full article here: http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local-beat/Passenger-Chooses-Strip-Down-Over-Pat-Down-109872589.html?dr

[Misskittycat]

1. Detained for recording the incident on a phone. WTF?

[niyad]

2. so the woman was arrested for recording the incident? heaven forfend there should be documentation

of what is happening to us. . .

[A HERETIC I AM]

7. The expression "heaven forfend" holds special meaning for me.

Or at least I think it does.

[subterranean]

8. Not arrested. Just detained.

I presume they "persuaded" her to delete the video; otherwise it would be on YouTube by now.

[jancantor]

22. Actually, case law supports the detention in some cases

since she is a witness in possession of evidence. Generally speaking, at a minimum, the cops are going to ID her so they can get a copy of the video via subpoena, etc.

[FreeState]

9. Or show the terrorist the process and employees

There are legitimate reasons to not allow filming in secure areas.

[awoke_in_2003]

14. how hard is it to figure out?...

They are not stupid.

[frylock]

24. they can pull off the greatest attack on american soil..

but are too stupid to figure out the tsa's secret nut fondling techniques? okay.

[MrsCorleone]

3. Seems the republicans want to privatize the TSA, just like they have in Florida.

The media blitz is starting to make more sense.

Just curious. How do you all feel about a private company running your airport security? How much taxpayer money is this worth to the private sector? About 7 billion?

[AlabamaLibrul]

19. How much worse can it get? Mandatory cavity searches? At this point, I don't care.

Fuck the police state.

[MrsCorleone]

20. Rep. John Mica and the greedy private security firms that will now have access

to $7B tax dollars thank you for your support.

Their tactics have worked. You are afraid and are willing to hand over whatever they want. Why stop there? Let's privatize our police departments, Social Security, Medicare, the military (oh, wait!)...

[AlabamaLibrul]

21. I am not "afraid". I am not willing to hand things over. Our freedoms have been handed over (or

taken) already, and at this point, I don't care.

Either a government worker, at the behest of our executive branch, does or some Blackwater wannabe does.

What's the difference?

[MrsCorleone]

23. You seem to be missing the point.

There was an election.
Republicans gained control of the House and, thus, the pursestrings.
$7B tax dollars for airport security just sitting there.
Need event to sufficiently outrage the public to facilitate the looting.
Sudden post-election change in TSA procedures?
Reports of "groping" 24/7 on all corporate networks, RW radio, astro-turfed blogs, etc.
Then, Voilà! Astro-turfed outrage ensues.
Republican cronies take our money.

It's about the money. It always has been. You have been astro-turfed, my friend.

[Radical Activist]

4. He doesn't want his body viewed by strangers so he stripped down to his underwear.

umm...yeah. I'm sure that makes perfect sense to someone.

:eyes: :crazy:

[FreeState]

5. It's just like the kid in Utah

His father took his shirt off - not the TSA. People need to follow directions and stop being asses IMO.

[LisaL]

6. The issues with x-rays is not just the privacy issue, but the

fact that they use radiation. What sense does it make for the TSA agents to demand he can put his clothes back on so he can be properly patted down? Where is common sense?

[FreeState]

10. You get 200 times more radiation from a typical flight in the air

Where is common sense?

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/health/How-Much-Radiation-in-an-Enhanced-Body-Scan-110008919.html

"We feel the amount of radiation is so negligible, that it has no impact whatsoever on health," said Luis Casanova of the Transportation Security Administration.

The TSA says going through the full-body scanners amounts to the same radiation as one one thousandth of a chest x-ray. A private physicist found it up to ten times that amount. Or one one-hundredth of a chest x-ray.

Others say the real affects just aren't known because they haven't been adequately studied.

So what's the truth? Michael D. Story, Ph.D. is an associate professor at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas in the Division of Molecular Radiation Biology, he does research on radiation for NASA.

His overall assessment of the scanners? "The risk in this case for cancer is extremely low. An individual should not be worried about that at all," Story said.
Story said the dosage from the body scanners is at least 200 times less than that a passenger receives during a typical airline flight. In other words, he says, if you're not worried about the radiation you get flying, you shouldn't be worried about the radiation from the scanner.

[LisaL]

11. From your link.

"There's also concern in the sense that basal cell takes a long, long -- decades -- to develop. So when you put children through a scanner, what are you doing decades later? We don't know that answer yet," Story said."
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/health/How-Much-Radiation-in-an-Enhanced-Body-Scan-110008919.html
So I should rest easy because "we don't know that answer yet."

[FreeState]

12. I guess kids should not fly then - since they get more radiation from flying

and we don't know the answers yet. Right? If someone is so concerned they would not fly with a child in the first place.

[LisaL]

13. You are more than welcome to x-ray your kids.

[FreeState]

15. Your more than welcome to give them more radiation via flying than a scan

Here maybe this will help:

Average radiation one receives from a typical flight:

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Average radiation one receives from a typical body scan:

X

I dont know, but Id be concerned about the larger amount before the smaller.

[LisaL]

16. The radiation from these scanners is not diffused through the body but concentrated

on the skin. But of course, please don't question TSA and go right through them. Nobody is stopping you.
"There really is no other technology around where we're planning to X-ray such an enormous number of individuals," Brenner told the caucus and congressional staffers. "It's really unprecedented in the radiation world."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126833083

[FreeState]

17. But yet you still have 90% more radiation from a flight on the skin

and 200% on the rest of the body from a body scan.

And with that Im signing off for the night - got to pack for my flight in the morning:)

Have a nice night!

[highprincipleswork]

18. Perhaps they will pick you anyway.

It's all well and good to quote this scientist or that, saying this or that, but there seems to be considerable questioning as to whether these machines are safe or not. And for what? The same intelligence that can figure out the multipliers of radiation from one comparison to another can surely also figure that these investigations can never be considered fool-proof till much more invasive procedures, like cavity scans, are commonplace. And not just in airports, but most likely other locations as well. Already scanners are employed at some courthouses.

So, when would you think it more prudent to just back off and discontinue such invasive procedures, especially since they don't guarantee safety and security anyway?

But if they do pull you aside for a pat-down, perhaps that all cool with you.

For others, this reeks of actions of a police state. i have been talking to friends in Europe, and the news there is agog with reactions to these new procedures. And this is on news that most of the time legitimately covers the news.

I will not end my post with a happy face, and cannot admit that I wish you nice flight. But I do wish you an enlightening encounter with this new technology and these new procedures.

[Tx4obama]

25. Kick n/t