The TSA's Airport Strip Show

Dreamed of being a stripper? Now you will be - like it or not!

The 9-11 atrocity, like the attack on Pearl Harbor and the sinking of the Maine, was one of laudably few occasions when the United States has, however briefly, just sat there and taken it in the shorts.

Unlike those two earlier horrors, 9-11 has not inspired the appropriate terrible vengeance against the perpetrators; as far as anyone knows, Osama bin Laden is living comfortably in Waziristan safe from American justice.  Instead, the energies of our government are directed at... the shorts of innocent and loyal Americans.

Yes, the inconvenience, futility, delay, and indignity inflicted upon our citizens by the TSA over the last ten years has not been enough.

We have stood peaceably in interminable lines for hours on end, putting our shoes on and off, taking our property in and out of bags, being wanded or not wanded depending on what the "security" goon had for breakfast that morning.

We've placidly handed over our printed boarding passes and photo IDs for examination like they were a lost Rembrandt, despite the passes being nothing more secure than a computer printout and the photo IDs generated by the same government-run DMV that happily sold fake IDs to the 9-11 terrorists themselves.

We've serenely watched Granny and Little Annie patted down as if they were Bonnie and Clyde while Mohammed Hussein prances merrily on down the concourse lest we be accused of "profiling," and while Juan Valdez the illegal immigrant works on airport construction free of any sanction or inspection whatsoever.

We have patiently stood by as TSA goons and buffoons pile depravity upon stupidity, only to see them contribute nothing whatsoever to the stopping of actual evildoers.

If Not Now, When?

Through all this, one question comes to mind: How much is enough?  Is there a limit to the humiliation and inconvenience to which Americans will submit in the name of "safety"?  Must there be any provable connection to actual security, or is the mere mantra of "It's for your own safety!" a blanket permission to spend money promoting any sort of tyranny, even if in objective fact it makes us less safe?

For lo these ten years, it's strongly seemed that the answer was: No, there isn't a limit.  American really don't remember what freedom is; Americans really are the gullible suckers that P.T. Barnum thought them to be; Americans will, indeed, put up with anything if they're told it's good for them, no matter how manifestly it is not.

And now, all of a sudden, maybe the straw has broken the camel's back.  The new backscatter scanners that produce very detailed, albeit black-and-white, pornographic images of people have been around for a while, but only now are they being required for ordinary people.

Well, not actually required.  If you'd rather not submit yourself to a high-powered dose of radiation therapy, you can elect for a search of a different sort which the Chicago Tribune describes.

This is not the gentle frisking you may have experienced at the airport in the past. It requires agents to probe aggressively in intimate zones — breasts, buttocks, crotches.

If you enjoyed your last mammography or prostate exam, you'll love the enhanced pat-down. And you'll get a chance to have an interesting conversation with your children about being touched by strangers.

Reviews of the procedure are coming in, and they are not raves. The Allied Pilots Association calls it a "demeaning experience," and one pilot complained it amounted to "sexual molestation." The head of a flight attendants' union local said that for anyone who has been sexually assaulted, it will "drudge up some bad memories."

Of course, you can elect to save the TSA minions from having to pay for a Playboy subscription:

The U.S. Marshals Service recently admitted saving some 35,000 images from a machine at a federal courthouse in Florida.

And unlike the TSA, people actually respect the U.S. Marshals.

Is there an alternative?  Apparently not, as recorded by a preternaturally wary traveler and reported in San Diego:

Tyner was simultaneously thrown out of San Diego International Airport on Saturday morning for refusing to submit to a security check and threatened with a lawsuit and a $10,000 fine if he left.

And he got the whole thing on his cell phone. Well, the audio at least.

There is, of course a solution, which we at Scragged have been calling for for years now: Abolish the TSA, restore American freedom, and save countless billions of taxpayer dollars.  It's refreshing to see such illustrious outlets as Forbes magazine finally joining our call for sanity both fiscal and physical.

America urgently needs to get in the habit of standing up to our oppressive and overbearing government.  The Tea Party is based on this theme from the point of view of money - we are, indeed, Taxed Enough Already.  We are also Regulated Enough Already, Harassed Enough Already, Nannied Enough Already, and now, Strip-Searched Enough Already.  (Once would be too many.)  The power of the people needs to claim a major bureaucratic scalp forthwith.

Until then, you won't be seeing us flying - as, indeed, we haven't in quite a long time now.  Why voluntarily put oneself through hell?  Even Satan isn't, himself, recorded as being a sexual molester, which is more than can be said for the TSA.

And Muslims, the cause of all these problems in the first place?  They can, in effect, opt out on religious grounds.  The TSA's tortures are reserved for Americans only.

Read other articles by Hobbes or other articles on Bureaucracy.
Reader Comments

Very true, but Muslims cannot opt out for religious purposes. I read that CAIR link you referenced. It says nothing of the kind. It's a general press release telling their followers what is happening and saying that they can and should request a) private rooms for the search, b) the reason they were singled out and c) that a complaint be filed if they're wearing the head thingie. What did I miss?

November 16, 2010 9:48 AM

Clearly that security cannot be bought at the price of citizens' liberty is once again demonstrated; that it was bought at the hands of a Republican interested in perpetuating fear is another story, to be sure, but then, politicians are never concerned about expanding the rôle of their minions in our lives.
Why are we more concerned now than when Bush established "Homeland Security" or the thugs in the TSA? It was never an issue that it is wrong, then or now ~! Is hindsight 20/20, or so myopic or is only when the minority party seeks credibility ?
Eternal vigilance, not complacency . . . .

November 16, 2010 9:52 AM

Read the "Special recommendations for Muslim women who wear hijab" on the CAIR page. It says, among other things:

"...ask the TSA officer if the reason you are being selected is because of your head scarf."

"Before you are patted down, you should remind the TSA officer that they are only supposed to pat down the area in question, in this scenario, your head and neck. They SHOULD NOT subject you to a full-body or partial-body pat-down."

"Instead of the pat-down, you can always request to pat down your own scarf, including head and neck area, and have the officers perform a chemical swipe of your hands."

This sounds totally different from the procedures reported by non-Muslims. No, of course it is not an official religious exemption - but as Hobbes said, "in effect", that's exactly what it is. No feeling up of Muslim junk required.

November 16, 2010 10:35 AM

As Hobbes' article mentioned, Scragged has been vehemently opposed to the TSA since long before Barack Obama was elected or even nominated. Go read the backfiles, moxy.

As to why the American people are only now, FINALLY, standing up and saying No, well, that's another matter.

November 16, 2010 10:38 AM

Sorry, Patience, but no. That's a substantially misleading interpretation of both the article and CAIR press release.

The article said:

"And Muslims, the cause of all these problems in the first place? They can, in effect, opt out on religious grounds."

The CAIR press release said:

"you should remind the TSA officer that they are only supposed to pat down the area in question, in this scenario, your head and neck"

If that is in fact the case - that TSA officers are only supposed to pat down what appears suspicious - that same advice can be used by anyone of any color or creed.

Nowhere does CAIR refer to a provision given to Muslims that allows them to "opt out on religious grounds" as the author claims.

By including that, an otherwise accurate and compelling article becomes a hatchet job.

November 16, 2010 10:41 AM

Take no risk, that is the way the American enemy thinks. We need not fly airplanes into building any more, once was enough to burden their society with excessive regulation. So we tried blowing up planes to worry them more. The shoes didn't work, the underwear didn't work, but even in failure there was success (Allah be praised). Now they must check shoes and for bombs under their cloths. We devised a way to blow up cargo planes, and it worked. But the dumb non-believers didn't even know we did it. So we had to repeat the effort again and even leak the information so that they could find the bombs in the cargo. That should add an additional several billion a year cost to being a non-believer.

Brothers and Sisters of Islam, with just a little effort and just a few people we can bring the Great Satan down. We need a good sister with large hips to carry a cavity bomb onto a plane. Even if you don't die, just being caught with the bomb will scare the non-believers into total meltdown.

But I ask you all, what else can we do to destroy their civilization? A container ship blows up in harbor due to a bomb in one of the containers? A suicide bomber on the subway would force metal detectors on all passengers. Same with trains. How about another poison in medicine attack? Can we contaminate their pork supply? Water supply? There is no end to how we can frustrate their lives from our safe havens. Americans are wimps. We are at war with their society, and they want to make peace...

November 16, 2010 12:20 PM

I am at a loss to understand why our American(Not Christians or Jews)brothers do not work on the real root causes behind this hatred of Arab Palestinians or Iraqi victims of uncalled-for war or Afghani Talibans,un necessarily engaged in fighting or oppressed Chechnyan’s or Kashmiri Freedom Fighters labeled as terrorists, whose only fault is a demand for implementation of Security Council resolutions (Not Muslims).Is it not a fact that Americans are paying through their nose for their government's discriminatory policies against these nations who incidentally all happen to be following Islam as their religion.(Incidentally?)

November 16, 2010 4:35 PM

So it is only incidentally Muslims that are the ones who perform terrorist suicide attacks?

And once again, NO there is not an official "religious opt-out", but YES clearly there is the EFFECT of one. As proof, we are seeing countless reports of ordinary Americans molested by the TSA - but NOT ONE of a Muslim in full-on jihadi garb being so inspected despite them being the ones who logically SHOULD be.

November 16, 2010 4:51 PM

Mohammad tried to create an air tight religion. Join or you die, later modified to join or if you are a people of the Bible, you can live and be a second class citizen. Also if you even think of leaving, you are dead. Pretty well prevents losses. Reinforced by being prohibited from even considering other religions.

This has lead to a coming crisis between his followers and the rest of the world, which I am sure he wanted. In the Jewish/Christian/Muslim religions the battle between good and evil centers on the actions of the individuals. The difference is in the standard of what is good and what is evil. In Islam, anything that furthers Islam is good, anything that hampers Islam is bad. Things that the Jewish/Christian ethics consider evil: murder, lying, deceit and slavery, are considered OK in Islam when done for the good of the religion. In their war for independence, an Israelite General destroyed a Muslim village: men, women, and children. Israel put him before a firing squad for his crimes. Had he been a Muslim, he would have been a hero.

This is a conflict between the definition of what is good and what is evil. It is not enough to praise the good parts of Islam. Muslims must come to realize that Islam is not really a good religion: there are better, much better religions. The lesson of the brotherhood of all Muslims, one of their best teachings, is hindered by the schisms within Islam. The suppression of women is one of their worst teachings and their greatest weakness. Their conflict with the rest of the world has no way of being defused. It will explode unless the people find a way to modify this religion.

November 16, 2010 6:27 PM

And, here's the proof:

“On the pat downs, CAIR [the Council on American-Islamic Relations] has recommended that Muslim women wearing hijabs refuse to go through the full body pat downs before boarding planes,” asked Napolitano at a Monday press conference. “Will you insist that they do go through full body pat downs before boarding planes?”

“Look, we have, like I said before, we are doing what we need to do to protect the traveling public and adjustments will be made where they need to be made,” Napolitano responded. “With respect to that particular issue, I think there will be more to come."

Sure enough - a religious opt-out BY EFFECT if not by official written policy. Normal Americans can't get out of the nut-check - Muslims, the group from which 100% of modern terrorists come, can.

November 18, 2010 11:32 AM

I read that CNS piece already. I had to because it's the only one out there making the claim.

Just to be clear, you and CNS are claiming that there's a whitelist for Muslims based on these statements from Napolitano:

"...“adjustments will be made where they need to be made..."

Seriously? That's what your basing this very serious accusation on?

What adjustments and for whom? Any objective viewer would take that comment at face value. The would hear Napolitano saying that she is aware of all the controversy and is promising to tweak the system until a proper balance is found.

I'm glad you went looking for more proof. By doing so, and only finding these meaningless throw-away lines, you've made my point.

November 18, 2010 12:05 PM

Nice try, but here's a mainline publication making the same point.

OF COURSE you would not expect the MSM to report the truth until they are forced to by the new media - it is politically incorrect. That doesn't make it false.

Napolitano has explicitly REJECTED changing the procedure for ordinary Americans - she specifically suggested that people travel by some other means if they don't like the TSA's sexual assaults.

November 18, 2010 12:52 PM

The deeper you get into this, the more you're failing.

1) The "new media" did not report it either. Find any other source other than CNS news that is making this claim. You can't. The center of this is nothing more than Napolitano's lone comment of "adjustments will be made where they need to be made". There is no other proof, facts, evidence or statements made by anyone or anything that suggest Muslims are being exempted.

2) Did you actually bother taking the time to read that Washington Times article? The only proof they offer, without which the entire article is pointless, is the exact same CNS news article. So they - like you and the author - are running off the same cliff. You can certainly find plenty of other blogs and news organizations parroting the same silly CNS article.

3) Why do you keep adding words like "ordinary Americans" to the issue? Napolitano's comments have never singled out any group of Americans over any other. I have searched high and low and cannot find any implication that "adjustments being made" or "travel by other means" is for one particular group.

Everyone already agrees that TSA is a ridiculous waste of money and an invasion of our liberties. Let's just leave it at that.

Muslims aren't getting special privileges here. They're being forced to endure the same hostilities you and I are, and we should be glad for that because it means more people hate the TSA.

November 18, 2010 1:16 PM

‘So it is only incidentally Muslims that are the ones who perform terrorist suicide attacks?’Yes!Patience , Only Muslims. Why only Muslims? If all the Scragged contributors as well as commentators are not willing to use their upper storey to analyze the ROOT CAUSE of the Muslim terrorist suicide attacks in USA ( Which are Hundred times more in Iraq or Afghanistan or Pakistan killing 'incidentally' mostly local Muslims),then I am afraid innocent US citizens( "ordinary Americans" ) will keep on paying huge taxes to meet the expense of wars in Palestine ,Iraq , Afghanistan ,Pakistan, …..,keep on losing jobs, keep on getting loans from China and least not the last keep on getting ‘molested ‘from TSA.GOOD LUCK.

November 18, 2010 4:29 PM

@ A.L.Puri

Dig around the website. Scragged has covered IN DEPTH why terrorism happens and what its root causes are.

Start here:

Then read this whole series:

Then read this whole series:

And so on...

November 18, 2010 4:33 PM

@BCurion -

You assume that Muslims are being groped and fondled just as much as everyone else.

Based on Napolitano's past performance and her statements, I believe they are not, as does the article's author apparently.

It should be trivially easy to prove that belief wrong: find similar cellphone footage of a Muslim in full burkha being this abused. We've seen white guys, grannies, little kids, and nuns being assaulted by the TSA, but NOT Muslims.

Show us some and prove us wrong. Falsifying a negative should be easy. Why isn't it?

November 18, 2010 5:48 PM

That's specious logic. By the same reasoning, I could say "show us that TSA hasn't been groping old black men". Until you show me a single picture or video of an old black man being groped, I submit that TSA has made an exception for old black men!

You made the claim that TSA is making a special exemption for Muslims. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you, not me.

November 18, 2010 5:53 PM

A German's View on Islam

A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism. 'Very few people were true Nazis,' he said, 'but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.'

We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.

The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent majority,' is cowed and extraneous.

Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China 's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.

And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points:

Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.

Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts--the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

Extend yourself a bit and send this on and on and on! Let us hope that thousands, world-wide, read this and think about it, and send it on.

November 19, 2010 6:12 PM

First of all, I am not of the belief that some "muslim" did 911. 2000 Architects and Scientists REFUTE the 911 commission report. Tests have been done around the world, proving there is no way in hell those buildings came down they way we have been told. Janitors, police officers, firemen heard explosives going off BEFORE the 2nd plane crashed. They were never called to testify. So, lets us for argument sake, "muslims" didnt do it. Who actually benefitted from it. Larry Silverstein owner of the WTC 30 days before it went down. Asbestos filled the buildings which would have millions to get rid...yet this buffoon got millions from AIG in insurance! Chertoff, and his partners in a "new" security firm started fearmongering about having scanners at every airport BEFORE the underwear bomber incident. Chertoff in his own words (youtubes everywhere) telling Congres "we must install this equipment to be safe". He got a contract for millions with another 1000 more scheduled. The former head of EL at Ben Gurion airport in Israel stated, "these machines are worthless....we would never have used them". BenGurion has never had an incident and yet Chertoff a dual passported Israel and Michael (co-authors) of torture and the Patriot Act under George WAR Bush are now in business of selling this crap while terrorizing the american people. A flight attendant who had breast cancer was forced to take here "false" breasts out at one of the airports. My next door neighbor is an international stew and has been complaining of co-workers who fly daily are getting sick with all kinds of ailments??? Radiation according to Columbia and John Hopkins is 20 times higher than an exray in your doctors office. This is not a right or left position, this is an american problem. Any legislator whether demorat or repuke and supports this horror, porno show, should be held accountable in the next election. Dont fly,until Congress ends this outrageous smack at our freedome and civil rights.

November 19, 2010 6:15 PM

The NYT may be catching on:

Pat-Downs at Airports Prompt Complaints
The government has asked for patience as travelers complain about feeling humiliated over the more aggressive measures.

FiveThirtyEight: Hidden Costs of Airport Security

I recognize that the outcry over the T.S.A.’s new security procedures — which has been both broad and deep in technology, travel and political blogs, but which has been less acute elsewhere in the country — has a bit of a Brooks Brothers Riot quality to it. That is because its effects are felt most manifestly among those relatively few Americans who have the means to travel (and the wherewithal to write about it).

It is, moreover, a hard story for the media to resist, given the sexy sorts of issues (Terrorism! Privacy! Civil Liberties! Junk-Touching!) that the debate turns upon.

Nevertheless, this is more than just some sort of wedge issue for yuppies with wanderlust: there are real and quite tangible consequences stemming from the procedures that the T.S.A. chooses to implement.

Consider what happens, for instance, when travelers are inconvenienced by a new security procedure. Yes, most of them will simply pass through the new body-scanners without incident, buy a snack at the Cinnabon, and go on their merry way. But others will do something different: they will be sufficiently annoyed by the procedures that they will decide not to travel by air the next time they have the choice.

In the past, more cumbersome security procedures have had deleterious effects on passenger demand. A study by three professors at Cornell University found, for instance, that when the T.S.A. began to require checked baggage to be screened in late 2002, it reduced overall passenger traffic by about 6 percent. (You can actually see these effects a bit when looking at the air traffic statistics: passenger traffic on U.S.-based airlines dropped by about 6 percent from the fourth quarter of 2002 to the first quarter of 2003 — greater than the usual seasonal variance — even though the economy was recovering and travelers were starting to get over the fear brought on by the Sept. 11 attacks.)

More stringent security procedures, in essence, function as a tax upon air travel, and produce a corresponding deadweight loss. Teleconferences are often a poor substitute for person-to-person interaction, and when people are reluctant to travel, some business deals don’t get done that otherwise would have. Recreational travelers, meanwhile, may skip out on vacations that otherwise would have brought them pleasure and stress-relief (while improving revenues for tourism-dependent economies). The tenuous profits of the airline industry are also affected, of course. Revenue losses from the new bag-checking procedures may have measured in the billions, according to the Cornell study.

Other passengers may substitute car travel for air travel. But this too has its consequences, since car travel is much more dangerous than air travel over all. According to the Cornell study, roughly 130 inconvenienced travelers died every three months as a result of additional traffic fatalities brought on by substituting ground transit for air transit. That’s the equivalent of four fully-loaded Boeing 737s crashing each year.

The effects could run in the opposite direction, of course, if new security procedures made passengers feel more secure about air travel — and therefore more willing to fly. As Anil Dash points out, even if one takes the cynical view that full-body scans are a type of “security theater”, and have little tangible effect on deterring terrorism, the mere act of making travelers feel safer may in and of itself be beneficial.

November 19, 2010 6:23 PM

"Satellite TV programs such as those broadcast on Farsi 1 destroy the chastity and honor of our families and encourage the young to take up lovemaking, wine drinking, and Satan worship."
MOHAMMAD-TAGHI RAHBAR, a member of Iran's Parliament, on comedies and dramas broadcast from Dubai into Iran by the News Corporation and a prominent Afghan family.

November 20, 2010 11:45 AM

In the muslim faith, they do not condone showing the body, walking around half naked. They consider the body to be pure and chaste. This is of course an insult to the faith. Because of the american/european cultures of dressing like whores they diminish women and girls. Imagine if your daughter or wife was being groped by these people? Would you not be outraged. The biggest outrage is that they dont work. They are emitting radiation at 20 times higher than a doctors exray. They can hurt the DNA of children, and cause mens sperm to go lower. God only knows what it does to people with Aids, or elderly with chronic conditions. This is just another way to go after "the useles eaters", and force the american public to submit to the Chertoff groups a bunch of right wing dually passported Israelies, who began the Homeland (a nazi) word in the first place. Chertoff used his position as Homeland Security and also his partner in thuggery Michael Hayden to create their own company to terrorize the elected morons into allowing this invasion of every civil right we have, so the american people can get used to be spyied in every facet of our lives. It gives new meaning to pedophiles, "piece of candy go for a ride"!!!

November 20, 2010 1:02 PM

@spktruth i sense a lot of anger .. i suppose any showing exposed skin
is a whore: you know that ? trivia question for a trivial and inane comment.
What you imply is that a) Nazis are alive and well; b) the world will be safe after the worthless assume the position;
c) were my body pure being arrogant would imply I would wish others to
adore it, and I would expose it often: no whore am I, for the price of worship is another's soul.
Except I don't want it.

November 20, 2010 11:13 PM

"Not if I could avoid it. No. I mean, who would?"
SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, asked on the NBC News program "Meet the Press" if she would go through an airport security pat-down.

If enough people decide the big wigs re avoiding it, will they get madder?

November 22, 2010 6:07 PM

Soldier carrying an assault rifle and a pistol had to give up his nail clippers:

In my best ever Chandler Bing voice: Can airport security be any lamer?

Why yes, young Skywalker, they can. To wit: A soldier was returning from Afghanistan on a charter flight. All the troops went through a security check as they left Baghram Air Field.

They all passed through full body scanners (gasp) and had their bags inspected by bomb-sniffing dogs.

But, BUT, when the plane stopped in Indianapolis to drop 100 National Guard members off, the local TSA said all the armed soldiers needed to be searched again.

A soldier wrote an email to saying:

It’s probably important to mention that we were ALL carrying weapons. All of us were carrying actual assault rifles, and some of us were also carrying pistols,”

None of the weapons were loaded. But when one TSA agent found nail clippers on a soldier, blammo, gone, el confiscato!

The soldier reported the agent said:

You can’t take those on the plane. They can be used as a weapon.

The soldier then pointed out the obvious. EVERYONE had a pistol or assault rifle the agent said… (Wait for it)

Yeah but you can’t use it to take over the plane. You don’t have bullets.

He gave up the clippers, but kept his assault rifle, and apparently the TSA agent was happy because the flight was allowed to continue.

November 23, 2010 2:26 PM
Add Your Comment...
4000 characters remaining
Loading question...