Live data from Hacker News

I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official

ourlittlechatterboxes.com

101–110 of 138 posts

Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official

#101
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Also, I really doubt many doctors are in medicine to be able to fondle their patients." Just to be clear, and I'm not saying you said that I said that (uh...), I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of doctors are not in the profession for this reason (a reasonably large part of my family and friends are doctors, all of them fine professionals with nothing but the best intentions in mind). So just to make clear that…

I would definitely have a problem with this. I'd argue that they have no more right to do a gynecological exam on a patient under anesthesia than they do to do any other procedure completely unrelated to the primary one. Absurd: could you imagine if you were getting your tonsils out and the doctor just decided to do an unwarranted prostate exam? Or perform liposuction as an added bonus. Or amputate a limb? All we're…

Oh I have a problem with this, too, don't get me wrong. What I was saying is that I find it hard to qualify as 'sexual assault'. In the case of amputating a leg against necessity or your will, as a regular 'assault', probably; it's the 'sexual' part that I think doesn't apply.

Still, in the case of the prostate exam, I'm not sure there is a criminal legal remedy against it. It's not assault, it's not sexual assault, at best it's a breach of patient-doctor confidence. A civil case, to the best of my knowledge. What kind of 'damage' are you going to claim? Statutory damages (for those in countries where these exist) are not going to help because if it can't be qualified under a statute, there's not going to be much 'statutory damage' either. Mental anguish? Maybe. It's a tough sell to most courts in most of the world though.

Doctors may have professional codes of conduct, maybe it's regulated in there, but doctors here in the Netherlands have those too - many of them, being a very regulated country; yet still for years these involuntary examinations were done, without the women knowing even. I see no reason to believe that this situation would be different in every other country of the world; in other words, if it happens in the Netherlands, I would find it logical that the same things happen in other countries. Not all other countries, just some.

Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official

#102
Just a thought.

Fight fire with fire. Sue the TSA and all its agents who performed the perceived insanity. A thousand (or million) court proceedings speaking against this would surely give the TSA a lot of headaches, that they would actually think of implementing something better in providing security for air travel.

I feel sorry for the Mom, who had to go through the ordeal and have to live with it everyday from this day forward. Though I feel more sorry for the kids who have been and who would be subjected to such grave abuse of authority.

Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official

#103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a pretty sick response and all too common. If you did not consent to be being touched in a certain way by another human being, no matter the circumstance, they have no right to do so. That is an assault on your person. She was not informed that this person was going to do the things they did to her. She was molested in public by a figure in a position of (supposed) authority. I cannot imagine what she must fe…

that you would dismiss this as "not a real crime" I do not dismiss it as 'not a real crime'. I dismiss it as sexual assault and I wish to strongly argue for not polluting the meaning of that crime with instances of someone touching you inappropriately. "Enhanced pat-down," is a shockingly sick euphemism for "molestation policy." I expect any police officer frisking me to touch my balls. He is putting himself in dange…

I do not dismiss it as 'not a real crime'. I dismiss it as sexual assault and I wish to strongly argue for not polluting the meaning of that crime with instances of someone touching you inappropriately.

Right there you deny, and then affirm my point. You don't think there was a crime, just that she was touched inappropriately.

I expect any police officer frisking me to touch my balls. He is putting himself in danger if he doesn't search thoroughly. That isn't considered molestation and if that isn't, then neither is this.

The police officer still requires just cause and must inform me of their intent. They cannot simply by virtue of being a police officer molest anyone they please. They have no right to apprehend someone and molest them. That would be a sexual assault crime as well.

You are using dramatic words to make strong accusations to try and make a point that should be made in an entirely different way. These kinds of overly dramatic arguments are easy to dismiss and unfortunately, the real arguments that argue for the same solution will silently be dismissed along with them.

I'm afraid that they will only be silently dismissed by those who are apologetic to perpetrators.

The problem is not that people are being touched in inappropriate ways. The problem is not that people are being touched in inappropriate ways without them being told about it upfront. The problem is that the legislation to allow this touching was passed in the first place, that the regulations depending on that regulation were put in place and that people actually seems to think this does anything to remove any threat. That is the problem.

The victim will not likely feel any less violated or assaulted because you choose to call it, "inappropriate touching." That is something kids do when they don't know any better. The problem in this case was that this woman was molested. Whether that was because the TSA agent made a mistake, was improperly trained, or was a sexual predator remains a question for the courts to hear and determine. Either way the charge is the same and the victim is no less hurt by what happened.

Calling it anything less is dismissing the crime. I'm not misappropriating the term with hyperbole. You're simply down-playing it. If we do not call it what it is, we choose to ignore it or apologize for it. Either way, it's a sign to me that you do not think there was a victim here and that this woman is not justified to feel the way she does as a victim of a crime.

At least we do agree on one thing: the greater crime here is the policy itself.

I simply hope that cases like this DO go to court so that the justice system can rule the policy unenforceable and compel the TSA to remove it.

Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official

#104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We ought not to call these incidents sexual assault. It sounds too much like hyperbole. I fully agree: these people should talk to someone who has actually been sexually assaulted. That would probably knock some sense into them as to the difference between their experience and actual sexual assault. Being thoroughly frisked, in public, in broad light, where nothing bad could possibly happen, is being compared to bein…

This is a pretty sick response and all too common. If you did not consent to be being touched in a certain way by another human being, no matter the circumstance, they have no right to do so. That is an assault on your person. She was not informed that this person was going to do the things they did to her. She was molested in public by a figure in a position of (supposed) authority. I cannot imagine what she must fe…

"There was a crime here and just because it wasn't violent doesn't make it any less criminal."

Actually by definition there wasn't. What is a crime is defined by law (in the broad sense of the word). This woman was authorized by law to perform this search. Ergo, it's not a crime. (the fact that she wasn't informed doesn't change that).

A prison guard beating an inmate who is rioting with a night stick doesn't perform 'assault' on that inmate either. Again, because the guard is authorized to do so by law (within the limits thereof, obviously).

Now you may hold the opinion that in these cases, the touching is unlawful. It's within your rights to do so. It still doesn't make it so. Saying it is dilutes the meaning of the words used, words that we as a society have spend decades on refining to be as clear as possible. Then using there words in a different meaning to give your argument (opinion) more weight is not intellectually honest debate. That's what the OP was objecting to.

Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that you would dismiss this as "not a real crime" I do not dismiss it as 'not a real crime'. I dismiss it as sexual assault and I wish to strongly argue for not polluting the meaning of that crime with instances of someone touching you inappropriately. "Enhanced pat-down," is a shockingly sick euphemism for "molestation policy." I expect any police officer frisking me to touch my balls. He is putting himself in dange…

I do not dismiss it as 'not a real crime'. I dismiss it as sexual assault and I wish to strongly argue for not polluting the meaning of that crime with instances of someone touching you inappropriately. Right there you deny, and then affirm my point. You don't think there was a crime, just that she was touched inappropriately. I expect any police officer frisking me to touch my balls. He is putting himself in danger…

  You don't think there was a crime, just that she was touched inappropriately.
As far as I am aware, that is a crime. It's just not sexual assault and it's not appropriate to compare the two as equals.

Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official

#106
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consent is a large part of the equation with your doctor analogy. If I'm going to the doctor for an issue pertaining to, or in the area of, my genitalia, I'm walking into that examination knowing where it will go. If I'm having pain in a testicle, I know that the doctor is going to touch my genitalia. If I'm having pain in my throat, however, I can't imagine a circumstance where a doctor could convince me that he or…

"Also, I really doubt many doctors are in medicine to be able to fondle their patients." Just to be clear, and I'm not saying you said that I said that (uh...), I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of doctors are not in the profession for this reason (a reasonably large part of my family and friends are doctors, all of them fine professionals with nothing but the best intentions in mind). So just to make clear that…

Just to be clear, and I'm not saying you said that I said that (uh...), I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of doctors are not in the profession for this reason

Sorry, I didn't intend to imply you said anything of the kind. It was meant to be a segue into "molesters have a new career path" and contrast this with doctors in general, not to put words in your mouth. Reading it now, I definitely see that I could have worded it better.

Regarding your later point, though, those practices aren't ok with me. When I was a teenager, I had some issues that I had to see a urologist about, and he asked me a couple times if he could check my prostate. I refused every time because I was uncomfortable with the procedure (yes, medically I probably should have, but that didn't factor for my 15-year-old-brain). Whether or not its sexual assault, or even assault at all, doesn't really matter. What matters is your perception, and what you would be ok with someone doing to you.

I've got a touch of RSI in my right hand. There is a very real possibility that somewhere in the next few decades I may need surgery for it, since I'm a programmer and arm/wrist abuse is pretty much par for the course. If I went for that surgery and was told "oh, and while I've got you under, I'm going to perform a prostate exam on you" then I'd definitely be looking for another doctor.

Everyone needs to have control over their own body, and there are limits to what we should have to endure. Having to choose between having nude photos taken of you, or having your genitals groped in order to travel around the country seems to be over the line of what I, and apparently many others, would deem acceptable.

I will not enter the United States because of this.

Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official

#107

I've been watching these stories trickle by on HN for a few days now wondering if I should say what I'm about to say. I'm going to put up an opinion that I'm quite certain is going to be unpopular. At length, I think the potential karma burn is worth speaking out. If you choose to downvote me, please drop in a reasonable reply as well: We ought not to call these incidents sexual assault. It sounds too much like hyper…

this is not an example of where we must suffer this kind of indignity.

Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official

#108

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution explicitly protects the people from unreasonable searches. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, 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 t…

I looked this up the other day and came across the following on TSA.gov:

"Even prior to the passage of ATSA and the Federalization of the screening work force, Federal courts upheld warrantless searches of carry-on luggage at airports. Courts characterize the routine administrative search conducted at a security checkpoint as a warrantless search, subject to the reasonableness requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Such a warrantless search, also known as an administrative search, is valid under the Fourth Amendment if it is "no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, " confined in good faith to that purpose," and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly. [See United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973)].

While the searches at the airport will be conducted by private screening companies, such searches will continue to be subject to the Fourth Amendment requirements of reasonableness because they are conducted at the instigation of the federal Government and under the authority of federal statutes and regulations governing air passenger screening." --http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/optout/spp_faqs.shtm (search for "amendment")

Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official

#109
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

American citizens have a lot of protections under Constitutional and federal law. Visitors have a lot fewer protections. Her citizenship didn't make the crime, it just made it worse.

Not only American citizens; as a green-card holder I have almost all of the same rights, the only right I don't have is the right to vote. I have the exact same constitutional rights as everyone else, even though I am a resident alien in this country.

A citizen can't be deported for any reason, ever. And I'm sure there are other differences.

Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official

#110

I've been watching these stories trickle by on HN for a few days now wondering if I should say what I'm about to say. I'm going to put up an opinion that I'm quite certain is going to be unpopular. At length, I think the potential karma burn is worth speaking out. If you choose to downvote me, please drop in a reasonable reply as well: We ought not to call these incidents sexual assault. It sounds too much like hyper…

I strongly agree. I think if you read the post it is definitely evident that although this was an unpleasant experience, the author is blowing things out of proportion. I know that may seem insensitive, but in the context of your post, I think it's important to be explicit about this point. The woman was given a rather invasive through-clothing security pat down. Of course this can be discomforting and invasive, espe…

How are you certain it was through-clothing? The first time I read the following I envisioned that it was under the clothes.

"She felt along my waistline, moved behind me, then proceeded to feel both of my buttocks. She reached from behind in the middle of my buttocks towards my vagina area."

"She then felt my inner thighs and my vagina area, touching both of my labia."

If it's through clothing then it really sounds like nothing more than a thorough security search that I've experienced many times just to get into a night club. The person patting me down didn't tell me she was going to touch my testicles, but a portion of her hand did touch my testicles, through clothing mind you. Or to write in the above fashion:

"She wrapped her arms around my torso and felt up and down my back, then she bent at the knees so that her face was in very close proximity to my penis and put her hands on my buttocks, squeezing them and moving them up and down."

"She then moved her hands around to the front and inside of my thighs, touching each of my testicles."

The way it is written, and the fact that this woman feels so violated, I imagined this was all going on under the clothes. I don't see how a standard through clothing pat down could be traumatic, but I guess everybody has a different threshold for acceptable behaviour. I have to admit it is a bit jarring to have your sensitive bits jarred by a stranger, but this is not sexual assault given the context.

She was told she was going to be searched, and she was searched. There's no need to have disclosure about every specific part of your body that is going to be touched when you consent to a search. Yes, a hand my briefly come in contact with your labia through your clothing. That should be understood by most adults with common knowledge and experience.

If this woman truly feels violated in the same way that a sexual assult victim does, then I think her sensitivity threshold is abnormal. That's not her fault, nor is it anybody else's to be held accountable for.

Post reply on HN