I'm based in India and am relatively unaware of how American politics work. I have always acknowledged America to be the 'land of the free' , where individual liberties champion everything else, so it's hard for me to imagine this happening. But doesn't Barack Obama have any power as President to stop this (from what I read) illegal act? I also thought he was the President that could change what went wrong with the Bush administration.
It not necessarily illegal... it's unchallenged in the court system as to whether it is legal or not.
Obama has, for the most part, turned a blind eye to much of the Bush-era paranoia. A lot of what was introduced is, I suppose, "convenient" to have around (like the PATRIOT Act). The only real thing that seems to have changed is closing the Guantanamo Bay detention center and trying detainees there in American courts, and that isn't going very well either.
Obama's policies have always been in line with bush, he voted for the patriot act extension (2006). As for Guantanamo & civil trials it's complete bullshit -- he's protecting people who should be tried for serious crimes, which makes him just as guilt. As for the civil trials, even if found not guilty the position of the obama administration is that they will not allowed to leave prison.
But is there no law that outlaws groping. I understand that the passenger has to provide consent, but he/she is not exactly in a positive or healthy frame of mind about it. Like the other day I read about a rape victim going through emotional trauma when subjected to the pat-down. Aren't a collection of such incidents, along with medical reports and/or proofs enough to at least warrant challenging the existing law?
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 to be seized.
What unreasonable means is up for debate but the line is somewhere. And my understanding is that you can't even "consent" away the bill of rights as much as that is argued by the TSA.
My opinion is that groping someone's genitals is clearly unreasonable and that the gradualism of the TSA rules has made this pass by unchecked. You might disagree with that though.
No political party cares about anything other than getting in office or staying there.
If the Democrats put a stop to this then the Republicans will call them weak on security and unwilling to keep our country safe. There will be millions spent on attack ads saying this. The Democrats will lose the next election.
The only way that would change is if the majority care enough to do something about it, and few do. Most people do not know why anyone would not want to use the machines, so they go through them. And of the ones who do care, many of them paid lots of money for their flight, want to get to it on time, and are likely trying to go somewhere important.
The president actually has fairly little direct control. The biggest thing he could do would be to get rid of the director, and I'm not even sure if he can do that directly, actually.
Also, you're assuming that Obama would actually do something like that if he had the power. He probably wouldn't. There's still a large constituency that thinks this is a positive change, and he couldn't lose all of their votes...
That's assuming the president in a given case (speaking generally) has any real power and wants to make the change. It's possible that a president is just a puppet beholden to the interests that got him elected, surrounded by staff who are loyal to those interests.
