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

[RogueWarrior65]

Well, ya know, she might be trying to knit an Afghan. *rimshot*

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly she fits the terrorist criminal profile.

Terrorists aren't complete morons.

A white, pregnant Catholic Irishwoman doesn't fit the terrorist profile either.

And yet, there was a bomb in her luggage, placed by her Jordanian fiancee:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindawi_affair

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

[erroneus]

If they were [allowed to use] profiling we wouldn't have these sad incidents.

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

[Mr. Foogle]

Terrorists aren't complete morons.

This is true. Which is why TSA has never caught one.

Perhaps we should re-think this whole airport security thing.

Re:PROFILED

[GameboyRMH]

Yeah you'd have planes blown up my non-brown people instead.

Well, OK, so terrorists very rarely try to get bombs on planes, and if they did, the passengers would probably stop them from setting it off, but you'd be creating a huge vulnerability by focusing on a certain profile. Same reason security software doesn't only scan files handled by Java, Flash, IE and Autorun.

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

[Ihmhi]

I imagine knitting an Afghan would look something like this.

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

[autocracy]

Hell, I miss the days when the pilots would sometimes just leave the door open, and I'm a pretty young guy. It weirds me out whenever I get on a bus service that has the driver behind a plexiglass cage. I won't say the cockpit door isn't a reasonable security measure, but the bus thing is asinine.

I don't think box cutters were ever a credible threat. The thing we had all learned is that unless John McClane is involved, you'll be a few days late getting home and see another country should your plane get hijacked. Hijackers weren't resisted because nobody feared they were going to die -- why risk injury? Aware that the goal of the hijacking is death, there will always be enough motivated passengers on a plane to fight back with anything they have. You can hit pretty hard with a metal Macbook.

Before the September 2001 attack, you could have hijacked an airplane with a herring. While some hijackings still happen in modern day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings), it's more common for passengers to overpower hijacking attempts.

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.

Re:PROFILED

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Beaten up for scaring the shit out of everybody on a plane.

FTFY.

Re:PROFILED

[element-o.p.]

Do you think TSA actually helps the economy? After finding out about TSA's grope/nudie scan policies last fall, I took exactly one airline flight, an already scheduled business trip, and that only after verifying that there were no x-ray scanners at either airport I was flying to. My wife and I planned to take a trip to Hawaii this year, but it's not gonna happen until the TSA backs off a bit on their policies. I know I'm not alone, because I've heard similar comments from many, many people in various on-line forums. I haven't researched the stats for hard numbers, but based on comments I've heard and what I've witnessed in my home state -- which has an economy heavily driven by tourism -- I'd guess that TSA is roughly equivalent to 9/11 in terms of how much economic damage they can do to the airlines and tourism in general.

Re:PROFILED

[Volante3192]

I'd work on their campaign is what I'd do.

Being a politician *should* mean having to make the hard decisions people will hate you for in the name of a strong union. We used to have diplomats. Now we have politicorporations. John Adams killed his shot at a 2nd term by not going to war with France (XYZ Affair). Now we call those with anti-war views in bed with Saddam Qadaffi. How far we've fallen...

Re:PROFILED

[eleuthero]

As a Christian, I would agree that we are unfortunately hypocrites in the sense that we do not live up to a model of perfection that we claim is the standard--and I include myself in that. We are imperfect. Our claim is that because of that imperfection, Christ took our punishment on himself. We don't instantly become perfect after this, though we are called to look for ways to change thereafter. This quickly brings up the issue of justice (how could one man be killed on behalf of others?)--but Christianity affirms that the guy that made the rules took on the punishment. It would be kind of like if I were working with a friend with a torch and my child came out running under our legs towards the pretty light after having been told to remain inside. I would be responsible for the rule, for the scenario behind the rule, etc. Breaking the rule could cost him big (life, use of a limb... sight, at the least, a trip to the hospital for burns). If the timing were such that either he took the fall or I did, it would be an easy decision--I would step between my child and the flame... even if it caused fatal damage. Christianity claims that this is what God did for man through Jesus.

Re:PROFILED

[Combatso]

Armed criminals often conceal weapons under clothing, precisely because their weapons would otherwise be obvious.

Clearly the only way we could ever feel safe enough to walk down the street is to outlaw all clothing. Makes sense to me. Do you see a flaw in this thinking?

I see a flaw, anyone with a concealed weapons permit would have to insert the weapon into an orifice.. If all guns are inserted in to assholes, only assholes will have guns.

Re:PROFILED

[10101001 10101001]

Or perhaps the GP was simply dismissing the implication of this story being news: that if we only had profiling, we could all cower in fear but instead of it being a 95-year-olds with diapers being molested and humiliated, we'd limit the molestation and humiliation to minority, brown-looking people. After all, if molestation and humiliation by the TSA is such a horrible thing, shouldn't it be a daily story in the news that another (short/medium/tall) (black/brown/white) (young/middle-age/old) (fat/thin) (male/female) was molested and humiliated by the TSA just to get on a plane? Shouldn't that inherently be news worthy?

Re:PROFILED

[eleuthero]

On the contrary, Christians are called to live changed lives. The impact of failing to do so on the community and on the individual is huge. The claim is not that Christians are not to do good actions (we are), but rather that no amount of good action can make a person "good" - the world has too many problems to ever stop. The standard is not lower but higher (even though the price has already been paid).

Re:PROFILED

[AJH16]

While I agree with you that there are many individuals who call themselves Christian that are not in the US, I would challenge some of your examples. I'm not sure why you brought the death penalty thing in to the discussion, but I do not believe it to be inconsistent. Jesus' teachings were fairly clear that there was a difference between personal justice and governance. If someone was to murder my loved ones, I would forgive them, but unless they were to be repentant of what they did, I would not want them to legally be given the option to kill again. I might not personally wish to see the death penalty for them, but I wouldn't want to tell someone else they can't have that if the court finds it just. The point of the whole loving your enemies thing is the idea that we are not judge over those who wrong us. (God is ultimately the judge) but he never said anything that would remove the government's authority to have legal consequences for an action, including death.

If you think of the death penalty as vengeance, then I agree with you it should not be, but if you consider it as a disincentive for taking an action or a legal consequence for that action, then I do not see it being inconsistent with Biblical teaching. That said, I don't personally have strong opinions on either side of it, if the majority wanted to get rid of the death penalty I'm fine with that and if the majority wanted it, then I'm fine with that too. I don't think I would ever care to see someone who wronged me in such a way as to get the death penalty executed.

Re:PROFILED

[IICV]

Well, not really.

If the passengers on the planes had known that the hijackers were suicidal and were going to kill them all, they would have acted.

In fact, we know this is true because besides the planes that hit the Twin Towers and the plane that missed the Pentagon, a fourth plane was hijacked; the passengers on that plane had news of what happened to the other three planes, and knew that the terrorists were going to kill them all. It ended up crashing in the middle of Pennsylvania after the passengers attacked the hijackers.

The thing is, before 9/11 hijackers would eventually land the plane and make their demands. A true warrior picks his (or her) battles, after all, and fighting the terrorists in the air was not a winning proposition based on previous experience. Sure, the terrorists only had box cutters, but if you just wait a few hours they'll land the plane and get distracted by making their demands, at which point taking action is more reasonable. Unfortunately, this time the terrorists were suicidal, which was unknowable to the passengers until it was too late.

So no, you can't blame it on the USA being "a nation that teaches children that 'it is never right to fight'". The passengers on those airplanes did fight, once it became apparent that fighting was the proper course of action.

Re:PROFILED

[mcgrew]

No, I'm not painting Christians with a broad brush -- I am one myself. I'm not perfect, far from it, but I don't scream "hang him" as so many do. The ones who bomb abortion clinics and call for the death penalty give the rest of us a bad name. So do the ones who go to church on Sunday and evict an out of work family on Monday. There are far too many of them, and not nearly enough of us.

The worst, I think, are the "gay bashers", especially the ones (some you alluded to in your comment) who later turn out to be adulterors -- adultery is one of the "big ten", far worse than homosexuality. Newt Gingrich is another, he's an especially bad hypocrite, chastising Clinton for adultery when he was doing the same thing under worse circumstances (his wife was dying of cancer) and saying he did it out of patriotism.

Some are indeed saints. I remember a news story a long time ago about a woman who visited the man who murdered her son to tell him that she forgave him for it. I remember thinking "now THERE'S a good Christian!" It changed the murderer's life, he's a preacher now. I can't hold a candle to that woman, she's a far better Christian than I am.

Re:PROFILED

[towermac]

These were armed men raised in a culture where bullying was far more acceptable than it now is,

Um, no; you've got that backwards. Bullying is more accepted now than it was back in the day. Which is why we've got national anti-bullying campaigns, increases in teen suicides, and stuff like the TSA. People aren't allowed to stand up for themselves anymore.

Back in the day, you picked up a board or a chair or whatever and you whacked the bully over the head and you stood up for yourself. And, it was quite common for the parents of the bully (who almost always spoiled the kid) to complain that their kid got beat up at school the one time some twerp stood up to them. But then again, back in the day, the school didn't freak out over such things; both the bully and twerp would probably get licks/detention hall and that was the end of it. Except that now that particular twerp was no fun to pick on anymore, so the bully would move along. Or sometimes, he might just quit bullying altogether because it ceased to be fun when the whole school heard about how the twerp stood up to him. That's how all the other twerps in the school could be saved by a single heroic act. But the zero tolerance rules nowadays ensure that the good kids won't risk expulsion, which includes parents possibly losing their jobs, and so do what they can to live with the bullying.

Without that "natural" bully control (there's always gonna be bullies), bullying runs unchecked (bullies always get away with it as far as adults knowing) and you've got kids so scared they feel the need to bring a gun to school, or just skip it altogether. And it's the same epiphany that causes both confrontation of bullies and suicide: "I'd rather die than continue living like this." But when kids are allowed, encouraged and empowered to stand up for themselves, the correct resolution of "I'm gonna make the bully either kill me or leave me alone." comes to mind; rather than the "I'll save everyone the trouble" thought that comes too often nowadays.

This woman was horrifically bullied, the same way millions of Americans allow themselves to be bullied by the TSA daily. Since the victim in this case is just about the most vulnerable member of society we have, we're acting all shocked and shit. Don't even pretend there is or was any possibility that she is a terrorist. A quick look at her and who she was traveling with reveals the absolute zero chance that she had a bomb with her. That's the most stupid part of this whole thing; like here, in this one case, the TSA went too far. Well, of course they did. Beyond the most outrageous fiction you could make up too far. But that's the new normal.

We don't mind being bullied now, especially in the name of safety. As long as we're bullied somewhat equally.

Re:PROFILED

[AJH16]

I understand what you are saying and I agree about the point of loving our enemies. I didn't fully complete the logic, but my full logic of it is that we are not the judge of our enemies because we are not any better and have no grounds to judge them. That said, God also established governments [Rom. 13:1; Prov. 8:15,16] and gave authority to the leaders of governments beyond what individuals have. Jesus said nothing to lead me to believe that this had changed under the new testament. He in fact kind of confirmed it is still true with verses such as Matt. 22:21. (Give to Ceaser what is Ceaser's (in response to a question about paying taxes to Rome)).

Governments are given the authority to form civil law and setup punishments for it. The idea of death as a penalty carried out by government as a result of violating a civil law was never spoken against in the Bible. Neither was the idea that war is wrong or murder. The nation of Israel was frequently instructed by God to go to war. The Bible makes it clear that the character of God and right and wrong is unchanging, so how can it be ok for God to instruct one people to go to war but then say it is outside the legitimate authority of nation states to decide to go to war without being morally wrong?

It is also worth noting that when Peter cut off the ear of the servant, the reason given was that it was time for Jesus to be taken, not that it was wrong to defend yourself. (For that matter, if Jesus believed that self defense was wrong, why did he even permit Peter to be carrying a sword in the first place?) [John 18:10-11]

I understand that you have convictions about this and am not encouraging you to go against them, but I wanted to offer food for thought as it sounds like you may still feel guilty for your involvement with the Air Force during Vietnam, and I do not believe that guilt is from God, but rather conviction and if you are feeling guilt that won't leave you despite repentant for what you feel convicted of, then I would challenge that your guilt and conviction is not from God. I would also challenge that you did nothing wrong in Vietnam even if you had been directly involved in killing within the duties of a soldier. Even if the reasons for going in to the conflict were wrong, the Bible is fairly clear that it is the leaders that are held accountable for that since the individuals can not know what the reason the leader has are and it is within that leader's Biblically established authority to give the direction to go to war.

One final parting thought is that my main criterion for evaluating situations has been this, is it something that is being done out of personal feelings and desires or something that is being done as a cause and effect of violating the law of the established government. Both the government and God have authority to make rules. God is solely responsible for punishing those who violate his rules and the government is solely responsible for punishing those who violate its rules. As long as I am not taking action against others for my own reasons, but simply in service to the government (a death row executioner, a soldier, a police officers, etc) and make very sure that my reasons for doing it are simply and only to follow and enforce the civil law, then I am not doing wrong as it is within Biblically established authority and justice.

Also, if I am defending others, I do not see a Biblical issue with killing someone if necessary. I have no ability to know which of those people are more likely to accept Christ, so I see it as a responsibility to try to defend the victim with whatever the minimal amount of force necessary is to ensure their safety. It gets trickier in personal defense as I know where I am going and I'm not sure that I would be willing to use lethal force in my own defense, but I know that I would have no problem using anything short of lethal force in defense of my life or if I thought that allowing myself to be killed would result in danger to others.

The key in all these situat

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

Independent review needed

[RogueWarrior65]

I love how the TSA says that they reviewed the case and gave a pass to their own people. IMHO, there needs to be an independent review board for bullsh*t like this. That aside, I think the woman should have put a plastic turd in there just to piss them off (you know, because a real one would be gross).

Re:Independent review needed

[TC Wilcox]

I love how the TSA says that they reviewed the case and gave a pass to their own people. IMHO, there needs to be an independent review board for bullsh*t like this. That aside, I think the woman should have put a plastic turd in there just to piss them off (you know, because a real one would be gross).

There were actually real turds in her diaper. That is why the TSA clerks wanted her to change it in the first place. I guess even though they don't mind feeling up everyone walking through the line they do mind poo.

Re:Independent review needed

[Dunbal]

Apparently you're only allowed 3 ounces of poo.

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.

According to some sources ...

[bigjocker]

According to some sources, they didn't find no shit

Other sources say ...

[bigjocker]

Other sources say they found some shit

Re:Other sources say ...

[operagost]

And now they're takin' some shit!

Re:Other sources say ...

[Dunbal]

And apparently they couldn't give a shit.

Re:Sick of this

[Warwick Allison]

I'm certainly glad I got an education... I wouldn't like to handle adult diapers for a living.

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

[mark-t]

According to them, these processes are preventative measures to keep somebody from smuggling a weapon onto the plane, thereby allegedly protecting *all* of the passengers, even though you are definitely correct in pointing out that what is done to any given individual does not protect them at all, personally... the TSA's response would likely be that putting you personally through such processes protects others... and putting others through it, in turn, protects you individually.

Of course, the above should not be construed in any way that I think these measures are a good thing... only that I can see their point of view - even if it does come from something that, IMO, qualifies as outright paranoia.

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:Want to live?

[chill]

First things first. Congrats on the +5 for the "I like to lick butts!" comment. That should be a special /. achievement. Kudos.

On to the discussion...

The car crashes DO equal the damage done by 9/11. Add up the unemployment, lost hours due to non-fatal injuries, grief time, having to now deal with single-parent issues, etc. and you'll find that it more than matches the loss of productivity triggered by 9/11.

Then take into account the fact that the car issues happen every day, and every year for the last 60 or so and will continue into the foreseeable future and you'll find that it dwarfs the impact of 9/11.

The problem is the spread-out nature of the event diminishes the perceived impact. The numbers get lost in the noise and unless you go looking for them, you don't see them. Even if you point them out to people, most won't acknowledge them. The human brain isn't wired for that sort of thing. We are VERY bad at judging risk at timescales other than the immediate.

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.

Couldn't care less

[L4t3r4lu5]

America is on my No-Fly List, and has been for a good long while.

I can simulate the air travel experience in my own room by pushing my desk chair all the way up to my desk, putting a couple of boxes in front of my legs, and watching DVDs from 8 years ago on repeat. For that added authentic experience, i'll invite two fat sweaty nerds to sit either side of me and flick peanuts at each other. The icing on the cake really is the 45 year old balding rent-a-cop sexually assaulting me at my bedroom door.

Seriously. Never going to America again.

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.

Re:Couldn't care less

[wvmarle]

I'm with you.

I've never been to the US, I'd love to see the place, but this whole flying nonsense is keeping me away from it. Having go through a watered-down version that's in place in the rest of the world (though EU is following the US closely) is bad enough. No interest to visit the source of that.

It's a pity, really, that it has to be like that.

Re:Couldn't care less

[greed]

No-one has told the U.S. border guards in economically depressed areas of New York State; you know, the parts that aren't New York City.

Those guys seem to be out to actively prevent tourism; which is all that some of those towns have left. One idiot north of the Adirondaks and Lake Champlain said he'd never even heard someone say "sightseeing" before, and we couldn't possibly be tourists as a result.

Presumably, he's never read those brochures at the New York Welcome Centre....

Re:Couldn't care less

[element-o.p.]

1) Because he's right.

2) Because America receives lots of income from tourism, and the more people like him who choose to vacation elsewhere, the more our economy suffers, and

3) Did I mention that he's right?

I, too, have decided not to fly anywhere in the U.S. anymore due to the nonsense at the airports, and I am a U.S. citizen living in the U.S. Worse than that, I live in Alaska, so if I want to go anywhere, flying is pretty much my only choice. It would take up most of my vacation just trying to get through Canada to go anywhere else. But I REFUSE to subject myself or my family to TSA. I hope more people make the same choice, because once the airlines start to feel the pinch, maybe they can generate enough leverage to get the policies to change.

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.

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:Why did they let her on the plane at all?

[Adam Appel]

And that's why I quit after 4 months. A few things tipped me off. This was before the shoe and liquid BS. 1) I stopped a kid with a small chain with a weight on each end (also called a manriki-gusari). The security "manager" over ruled that and let him on the plane with it. Then I went though a checkpoint with and IED (inert C4) without alarming in any way. Then another screener failed to find a firearm in a XRAY then hand search during testing. then during training about terminal evacuation for bomb threats one TSA lady stood up and made a huge scene "I anin't goin down there if there is a re-port of a bomb, uh-ah, no way, I anin't paid to do that, I anint a cop". I said in my head, I am out of here. There is about 5% who want it to be effective. I head from their own lips "I got me a good government job now". Yeah, not now, everyone hates you.

Re:Why did they let her on the plane at all?

[Darinbob]

People who were just following orders have caused more damage to the world than any other group.

It's obvious why they did it

[Cro Magnon]

They were afraid she'd do a boom-boom.

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!

tsa funding needs to be slashed

[Dan667]

the tsa is hugely expensive and provide no actual security that is going to stop a terrorist act. Those funds should be put towards agencies like the CIA and FBI to actually put people out in the field to infiltrate and disrupt these networks like they use to do back in the day when they were effective.

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.

Shark Attack Journalism

[retroworks]

Slow news day. Mainstream media cannot seem to resist publicizing "shark attacks", even if bee stings and railroad crossing deaths outnumber shark bites and terrorist attacks exponentially. Having created a disproportionate reaction to the statistical risk of terrorist attack (resulting in TSA), they are now doing the same thing to TSA, leading us all to believe that a significant number of TSA screenings are spent on 95 year old diaper-wearers.

Re:Perhaps we need another amendment?

[element-o.p.]

Yeah, exactly! Fortunately, TSA only conducts searches at airports before you board the airplane and they never, ever, direct train passengers to a secure area (where it wasn't otherwise necessary for them to go) at the END of a trip BY TRAIN. Because that would just be absurd. How soon will the government apologists be arguing that if you leave your house, you are giving implied consent to be searched?

How about the government goes back to respecting the spirit of the 4th Amendment? You don't have the right to conduct an invasive pat-down or electronic strip search until and unless you have a bona fide reason to suspect that I might be a danger to other airline passengers, and no, buying a ticket is not a "reasonable suspicion."

Re:TSA has just FUCKED with the WRONG GROUP

[tompaulco]

we all know how much Washington fears AARP
Well, of course they do. Most of them are in AARP.

The TSA provides top-notch security...

[SeeSp0tRun]

for the wallets of the investors of any company developing airport security hardware.