TSA the Employer of Last Resort for Sex Offenders?
By Mary Theroux • Tuesday May 29, 2012 2:05 PM PDT • 9 Comments
One might think that a Catholic priest removed from his position for sexually abusing children might find it difficult to find gainful employment. And one might think that this is a good thing—especially that he find it difficult to find employment involving intimate contact with children.
But the Transportation Security Administration apparently thinks differently.
Former Catholic priest Thomas Harkins was removed from the ministry in 2002 because he was found to have abused two young girls. He is now facing a new lawsuit involving a third girl, accusing him of “sexually abusing an 11-year-old girl 10 to 15 times in 1980 and 1981.”
Yet the former Father Harkins is now employed by the TSA, and was found working at a TSA checkpoint just last week:
Flyers beware.
Tags: Civil Liberties, Civil Society, Defense, Family, Morality, Personal Liberty, Privacy, Surveillance, Terrorism, The State, Transportation, Women 
I abhor the TSA, but the question is, is this the guy who pats down little kids? If the answer is no, then why shouldn’t he have a job? Or should he join all the rest of the sex offenders who are living on the streets because the state has made it impossible for them to live or work anywhere? Maybe he could move to Miami and live in the colony of sex offenders who “reside” under a bridge.
Let’s hate the TSA all we want. But I for one see little sense or compassion in depriving someone of a way to make a living. He is a supervisor. If he isn’t handling little kids, what’s the problem? Is it that as a human being living upon the planet earth he cannot help but come into contact with children? Maybe we could gouge his eyes out and then he won’t even be able to see the children.
Will people be satisfied then???
Elizabeth Bernard Higgs | May 29, 2012 | Reply
Hi, Elizabeth.
According to the story, he’s not actually a supervisor, he’s a baggage specialist. But the point is that people move around within the TSA and handle different assignments. Thus, it’s entirely feasible that he could be the one to do an enhanced search (a/k/a “groping”) of a child.
I do not believe that a person who has a demonstrated proclivity for using children as sex tools ought to be employed in a job that provides them with intimate access to children—especially a position of such unassailable authority as the TSA has over the flying public.
I am not advocating that he have his eyes gouged out or otherwise kept from gainful employment that I do not subsidize.
With best wishes,
Mary
Mary L. G. Theroux | May 29, 2012 | Reply
TSA employees have arrest powers...they are supposed to be held to higher standards
smokey4001 | May 29, 2012 | Reply
TSA the Employer of Last Resort for Sex Offenders
That sounds about right ...
amateur libertarian | May 29, 2012 | Reply
If you did a little research, you’d find public funding of pediphiles and pediphile protection all over the world.
http://holliegreig.info/
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-franklin-cover-up/
chancho | May 30, 2012 | Reply
It is my understanding that all TSA Employees who come into contact with people have to undergo a Backround Investigation up to level 1 maning that registered Sex Offenders are disqualified and that in tis case there is no appeal as Registered sex Offenders are a blight on our Society as a whole and to have one or more as TSA employees with arrest powers is wrong and against the law !
Arthur Mackey | May 30, 2012 | Reply
Oh, I get it — you can make a living groping little kids’ crotches, but only if you’ve never been caught groping little kids’ crotches. The trick, you see, is to get into TSA BEFORE you get caught. The problem isn’t the former child-molesting priest. The problem is the public mentality that if it wear a uniform, it gets to do whatever it damn well pleases.
Rita | May 30, 2012 | Reply
Arthur:
This news account reports:
Lots of people escape a criminal record who ought not be in a position of such power. Yet I would contend that the TSA itself is a criminal activity (as Rita says)—invasive searches which have resulted in much abuse by people given too much power, while having no effect on safety. It needs to be abolished.
With best wishes,
Mary
Mary Theroux | May 30, 2012 | Reply