TSA Has 95-Year-Old Remove Her Diaper For Screening

wjcofkc writes "The Transportation Security Administration stood by its security officers Sunday after a Florida woman complained that her cancer-stricken, 95-year-old mother was patted down and forced to remove her adult diaper while going through security. 'While every person and item must be screened before entering the secure boarding area, TSA works with passengers to resolve security alarms in a respectful and sensitive manner,' the federal agency said. 'We have reviewed the circumstances involving this screening and determined that our officers acted professionally and according to proper procedure.'"

Comments

PROFILED

[rainmouse]

Clearly she fits the terrorist criminal profile.

Re:PROFILED

[michelcolman]

Obviously. Intelligence has determined that all the younger terrorists must have blown themselves up already. This means the likelihood of elderly suicide bombers has increased tremendously. It's only logical. Keep up the good work, TSA!

Re:PROFILED

[Rob Kaper]

Terrorists use eight year old kids as vessel for their explosives, precisely because security is sometimes lowered for obviously innocent types. Not to say I appreciate the security bloatfest of the past decade, absolutely not... but being old or disabled is not a "get out of security checkpoints free" card and never should be. Can't respond on the individual case, I wasn't there.

Re:PROFILED

[Volante3192]

And to that I say... 'so?'

People die every day, and in the US it's more likely to be from bee stings than terrorist activity.
Yet we've determined to spend billions to make that a zero percentage. What about those terrorist bees!?

Re:PROFILED

[Anonymous Coward]

So you saying someone would hide a bomb in this woman's DIAPER without her knowing it? :)

Re:PROFILED

[hedwards]

This.

We shouldn't be granting exceptions we should be scrapping the program entirely. 9/11 would not have succeeded had the airline industry not been so cheap as to not pay for the kind of reinforced doors that had been in place in planes flown in other parts of the world. Additionally, had we not banned knives on planes, it's unlikely that the plot would have succeeded either as the terrorists would have been outnumbered.

It's astonishing to me how many people think that another 9/11 style kamikaze jet liner attack could happen that way given the awareness that the hijacker hostage deal has changed and that being quiet no longer guarantees that the situation ends in the inconvenience of being flown to Libya or Cuba. At this point, they're going to just bomb the security check points like they do in other parts of the world, much easier to succeed doing that and definitely enough bloodshed to keep people terrorized for years to come.

Re:PROFILED

[rubycodez]

Terrorists use eight year old kids as vessel for their explosives

Your basis for this is that airplanes are falling out of the sky like hail from children rigged to explode? or that the TSA catches all kinds of children wired to blow? Or, are you a coward living in fear, willing to give up your rights to not be molested and humiliated by TSA who have never, ever caught a terrorist?

Re:PROFILED

[KermodeBear]

Bees also don't billions in economic damage.

A single blown-up airplane would cause many people to cancel their flights, causing a lot of damage to the flight and travel industries. It would also scare the populace. A scared populace is less likely to spend money on anything. If the people aren't willing to spend money, then investors likewise will be tighter with their purse strings. The general populace and investors not spending money is bad for the economy.

The security theater is about money and little else.

Re:PROFILED

[Anonymous Coward]

A single blown-up airplane would cause many people to cancel their flights, causing a lot of damage to the flight and travel industries. blah ... blah ... blah

Which lasts a few months and then people forget about it.

The TSA damages the airline industry forever.

Re:PROFILED

[wile_e8]

This.

We shouldn't be granting exceptions we should be scrapping the program entirely. 9/11 would not have succeeded had the airline industry not been so cheap as to not pay for the kind of reinforced doors that had been in place in planes flown in other parts of the world. Additionally, had we not banned knives on planes, it's unlikely that the plot would have succeeded either as the terrorists would have been outnumbered.

It's simpler than that. 9/11 succeeded more due to the mindset at the time than anything that wasn't allowed on planes. Ten years ago, the standard operating procedure for a hijacking was to give in and deal with it on the ground. The 9/11 attackers went after the flaw in this plan, which assumed the hijackers weren't suicidal. Today, even if we didn't have reinforced doors and still banned knives on planes, any would be hijackers with box cutters wouldn't make it two steps up the aisle before half the passengers would take them down.

Re:PROFILED

[fuzznutz]

I'm not sure if I would mod you funny or troll..

The security theater is all about control. Do you think for one second that the administration could have gotten away clean with wireless wiretapping if not for the security theater drumbeats and foolish sycophants claiming they are doing a great job protecting us? We (the US citizenry) are being slowly inundated into total surveillance, control, and servitude by the minions of the government who just can't get enough of that security theater.

Re:PROFILED

[Runaway1956]

Boxcutters are only a credible threat in a population of thoroughly cowed citizens. A nation that teaches children that "it is never right to fight" can expect their children to grow into pansies who are bullied by anyone, and everyone who grows up fighting.

Boxcutters. Yes, of course, in the hands of a trained killer, ANYTHING will become a weapon. But, that boxcutter is simply not a weapon of choice among killers, because it's so easy to defend against. Presuming, of course, that the target has a mindset which permits him to think in terms of defense and offense.

Re:PROFILED

[mcgrew]

I only have six points left so I think I'll respond (even though I wouldn't have moderated your comment either way and left it at 1).

This is indeed a religious war. The US is fighting to protect its national religion -- the worship of money. Most "Christians" would probably denounce God and Christ if you offered them a hundred million bucks to do so, despite the fact that that's the worst sin a Christian could possibly commit (worse than mass murder). Most money worshiping Christians don't even realize that they love money more than they love Jesus.

Hypocrites. How many of these so-called "Christians" call for the death penalty, when the man they call their lord and savior said to love those that hate you, do good to those who harm you, and forgive your enemies? No wonder there are so many athiests, considering how hypocritical most "religious" people are (that includes Muslims and Jews as well as Christians).

The TSA is about instilling fear among the populace so the government can take away what few rights you still have. It should never have been started, and neither should DHS have been. Homeland security should be the military's job. If there is a TSA their job should be to make sure our deteriorating bridges don't collapse and the airliners don't have mechanical defects or drunken pilots.

Could've been worse

[Zerth]

At least they didn't break a colostomy bag seal.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/politics/TSA_chief_apologizes_to_traveler_with_ostomy-109990494.html

Re:When I'm a U.S. citizen traveling domestically.

[Volante3192]

Yep, and thanks to them, they got to pull off a one time only ever event. Plane hijackings stopped becoming a legitimate terrorist tool as soon as the first tower was hit. (Who came out of 9/11 as the biggest heroes? United 93.)

The fact is terrorists are NOT stupid. They know they can't pull this off again, but they're having a hell of a time laughing at us pissing ourselves to soaking levels every time someone drops a penny at a security line.

Your pussy nature has let them win, exactly what you think you're trying to prevent.

It'd be funny if it wasn't so damn depressing.

Want to live?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't diss bees. They work very hard and then we steal their honey. Also, they don't sting unless they are in mortal peril, or if their hive is threatened. Bees are very docile. Appreciate them, they deserve it.

Obligatory car analogy: people die in car crashes every day. Most of them could have easily been avoided. We don't try to do that, because we feel we have the right to behave how we want in our car. Freedom and all that. Drunk drivers think it is ok to drive when intoxicated, even if they are told it has a higher risk. We still use our mobile phone in the car, even if study after study proves it is rather dangerous. Some cars aren't really fit to be on the road, but does that stop us?

But somehow we feel we should have our genitals groped on the off chance there might be a non-savoury passenger aboard. Even when the drive to the airport is several orders of magnitude more dangerous.

We are a stupid lot, really.

Re:When I'm a U.S. citizen traveling domestically.

[BasilBrush]

The fact that 3000 people were killed on 9/11, ten years ago is not justification for every single action which has the label "anti-terrorism" attached to it.

In the US around 35,000 people are killed every single year as a result of road fatalities. If the same paranoia were applied to this much larger figure, speed limits would be e.g. radically cut and there would be mandatory alcohol and drugs testing before each road journey.

There's a balance to be made between risk and liberty/inconvenience. And the one that is currently being made in air transport security is ridiculous.

Re:This is why profiling works.

[rebelwarlock]

So anyone who thinks this ridiculous security theater is absurd is a narrow minded bigot? Well then, if being against molesting children and harassing the elderly to no gain makes me a bigot, I suppose I am.

Rose by any other name

[buravirgil]

Can stink. While the War on Drugs (patent pending) is being comically questioned in Congress, the TSA has always, and continues, to countenance its spirit as 'terror'. Drug interdiction is the concern and naked ambition pursued by "securing" airports with the Patriot Act. Termed "controversial invocations" by Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_invocations_of_the_USA_PATRIOT_Act What this incident revealed is an established "thinking" of TSA agents, akin to police popularizing incidents of mothers hiding crack in a baby's diaper, and that no one is above suspicion. And extreme acts are how agents of power assert policy. Should there be a "rule"? In what regard? Ages 55-100? People in a wheel-chair? This action is a form of active propaganda-- because if we can all condemn this action as too extreme, actions upon everybody else is all the more normalized.

Re:Independent review needed

[cheekyjohnson]

IMHO, there needs to be an independent review board for bullsh*t like this.

In my opinion, the TSA needs to be eliminated completely. They don't appear to be doing much good, violate peoples' privacy, and even if they capture a few 'terrorists', I don't believe that forcing innocent people to be searched is worth it (especially considering the low chances of terrorist attacks in the first place). More security on the planes themselves (such as reinforced doors) is better, in my opinion.

Why did they let her on the plane at all?

[BetterSense]

If they really thought she had explosives...would they have let her on the plane? Of course not.

A lot of people seem to miss this simple point through, I guess, conditioning.

By letting the old lady get on the plane, they admit that they are extremely confident that she is NOT a terrorist and whatever was in her pants is completely harmless. Otherwise they would never let her on the plane. And this goes for all the people who have their play-doh, baby bottles, cheese, etc confiscated. If TSA had even a small reason to believe those things were actual explosives, you would not be flying that day, no fucking way. I mean, what do they do with the supposed possible-explosives they confiscate? If they are possibly explosives, shouldn't they put them in some explosion-safe location and have a bomb expert examine them to determine the danger? They don't do any of that, because they known goddam well that the baby bottles and cheese they confiscate is perfectly harmless. They just confiscate it anyway, because they are thugs and they can.

If I try to get on a plane and they honest-to-god find explosives on me, and honest-to-god think that I'm going to blow up the fucking plane, do they just let me leave the line, dispose of my explosives, and then get back on the plane? Of course not. They would never do that. Honestly, I don't know what they would do--I don't think they would know what to do with a real bomb or a terrorist if they actually caught one--but they would probably shut the whole terminal down, call the bomb squad, and arrest me. The fact that they do none of those things when the confiscate my cheese is proof that they know I'm harmless, but they steal my shit anyway. In this case, they knew that this old lady was harmless--you know this--but they just bullied her anyway, because they are thugs and they can.

Re:TSA is crazy.

[beckett]

keeping it close to your body where it absorbs in through the skin has been suspected as the cause for skin and nervous system issues over the past ~20 years.

So why doesn't everyone have kidney and bladder cancer? those organs are in continual, unending contact with urea. or do you believe that skin is the only porous human body tissue?

It's no coincidence that when some chiropractors work on infants (I refuse those under ~3, allowing their spines time to set), they notice that diaper rash is almost a guarantee of spinal and nerve issues. Without thinking, the parents are filling their precious child's system full of urea and other toxins.

Actually,parts of the skeletal structure are still in development well into puberty (e.g. cranial sutures). By recommending spinal manipulating >3yrs, you're recommending potentially maiming a person that you think has a completely "set" spine. this is not based on any science nor reasonable health practitioner's recommendation; in fact, you'd have trouble finding any medical doctor (not chiropractor) to state that diaper rash is a nervous issue. to treat diaper rash, look for horses, not zebras. and keep 3yr olds out of the chiropractor's office!

Re:This is why profiling works.

[the_raptor]

It is absurd to pat-down or scan ANYONE boarding a flight. A bomb carried on a person in such a way that it would be detected by this screening is entirely incapable of bringing down an air-plane. It could kill people but that would probably work better in the security line then when seated in an aircraft.

And yes profiling works (to a degree). The problem is that by profiling you alienate that group from society and from law enforcement. It has been proven time and again that the only way to stop ethnic crime is by the police forging strong ties with the community.

George Orwell was an optimist.

[h1q]

When I read 1984 as a youngster I was shocked at the telescreen, the minutes of hate, the ever-shifting language and designated terrorists, and the frightful Room 101 ways of dealing with questionable comrades.

At some point with water-boarding, elimination of due process and habeas corpus for designated humans and spying without warrants, we have now fulfilled Orwell's nightmare of a despotic totalitarian system of politic and thought. And we aspire to further degradation of the human spirit.

Re:Couldn't care less

[GameboyRMH]

Because as the US moves to a service/IP economy, you'll depend more on foreign business and tourism (hah, good luck). Making travel a giant PITA will hurt those things.