TSA extensively searched 95-year-old wheelchair leukemia bound Grandmother

[Ichingcarpenter]

June 25, 2011 11:09 AM

Daily News


A woman has filed a complaint with federal authorities over how her elderly mother was treated at Northwest Florida Regional Airport last weekend.

Jean Weber of Destin filed a complaint with the Department of Homeland Security after her 95-year-old mother was detained and extensively searched last Saturday while trying to board a plane to fly to Michigan to be with family members during the final stages of her battle with leukemia.

Her mother, who was in a wheelchair, was asked to remove an adult diaper in order to complete a pat-down search. “It’s something I couldn’t imagine happening on American soil,” Weber said Friday. “Here is my mother, 95 years old, 105 pounds, barely able to stand, and then this.”


She said her mother was first pulled aside into a glass-partitioned area and patted down. Then she was taken to another room to protect her privacy during a more extensive search. Weber said she sat outside the room during the search.She said security personnel then came out and told her they would need for her mother to remove her Depends diaper because it was soiled and was impeding their search. Weber wheeled her mother into a bathroom, removed her diaper and returned. Her mother did not have another clean diaper with her, Weber said.


snip



http://www.nwfdailynews.com/news/mother-41324-search-adult.html

[AlabamaLibrul]

1. Quite frankly this is not news

It is not news every time TSA "searches" someone who isn't a 20 year old able-bodied person. If you are a human, you're going to be subjected to this bullshit when you fly. Don't like it? Don't fly in a public airport in the United States. This is how it is now.

[Ichingcarpenter]

2. She was dying and flying back to see family

for the last time..

[AlabamaLibrul]

3. TSA doesn't care. n/t

[Dept of Beer]

13. Yes, the Stasi and their advocates certainly do not care.

The government does not care about torture.

The government does not care when your job is mailed to India.

The government does not care when the country is falling apart.

The government does not care when your unemployment runs out.

And the government certainly doesn't give a flying fuck about its citizens.


But that sickly 95 year old grandmother might be employed by Osama Bin Ladin's ghost so let's humiliate her guud.

[indepat]

45. Amurika, Amurika, watch as the TSA makes a mockery of the land of the free and home of the brave a

:patriot:

[Dept of Beer]

59. That slogan has been rebranded. It is now known as

The Land of the Fee and the Home of the Slave.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Occulus]

40. ,

[malaise]

71. Which is why her family should complain

This is fugging madness

[Book Lover]

110. Nor do you, apparently

I suppose it's unrealistic of me to expect outrage from every DUer every time we hear of these violations, alas. Familiarity breeds acceptance.

[SDuderstadt]

111. It's not a violation of the...

4th amendment. Educate yourself on case law regarding exceptions to the 4th amendment.

[Book Lover]

112. Thank you for the correction

However, the attitude you can place where the sun goes not.

[SDuderstadt]

113. Well...

wouldn't it make sense for people to have done due diligence before just popping off about "4th amendment violations'?

[Fuzz]

53. Perfect recruit for a suicide bomber dontcha think?

It's all over for her, might as well take a plane full of people with her. Load that diaper with some plastic explosives, drop a duce in them and yell I'm old, pissed off and I'm not gonna take it any more!!

Then boom goes the diaper.

And you would be the first one complaining "Why didn't the TSA stick their hands in the 95 year old lady's diaper to look for explosives?" "Think about the children." And all that crap. I for one have nothing to hide, so much so that I took down all the curtains in my house, keep the door open and walk around naked. On every other Thursday I put a digital camera up my ass and post the pics live on the net, just to show I'm not hiding anything.

God bless our brave TSA. They are keeping us all safe from the terror 'n stuff.

[Hippo_Tron]

75. You really don't think it's outside of the realm of possibility...

For terrorists to find an elderly person with dementia and attach a bomb to them? Especially if TSA has a blanket policy of not searching anybody who isn't an able bodied 20 something male.

Look, I'm fine with stopping invasive screening of EVERYONE and deciding that we're simply going to stop living in fear. But profiling both compromises liberties and it doesn't work. All terrorists have to do is find somebody who doesn't fit the profile and they will have a 100% success rate. It either needs to be everybody or we shouldn't even bother.

[nadinbrzezinski]

89. Bomb dogs

yes it is that simple, but don't expect this in the US.

Oh and profiling is not what you think it is, partly because of how profiling is done in the US.

Oh and yes, it is possible, yes it has happened... and the elderly woman did not have dementia by the way... but we can also use babies. So does that mean we all need to start traveling nekid to make security fanatics happy?

Nope, what we need is stop the theater... travel abroad to get a clue of what I speak off... and actually use real security.

Here is one for ya...

TSA checks WHEN YOU COME IN FROM AN INTERNATIONAL FLIGHT, and you have NOT left the sterile area... this is how crazy this is. Did I mention the original security at that fuirieng third world airport was better than the theater that passes for security here.

[Hippo_Tron]

169. As far as using bomb dogs instead of the porno scanner, I'm all for that

Please elaborate on what countries you are referring to and how they do profiling. I know how they claim they do it in Israel, by looking for people whose facial expressions and body language indicate that they have something to hide. But I think that sort of profiling has some seriously vulnerable flaws, as well.

[sabrina 1]

6. Wow, this is acceptable to you? This horror, stupidity

violation of rights, for profit? It may be 'how it it' but it is beyond wrong and when something is this wrong, people have to do something about it. Just lying down and taking is simply NOT an option.

How much more should we lie down and take? This is despicable, disgusting, horrific and shameful and I certainly will not sit around saying 'this is how it is'. This is NOT how is should be and who could have imagined it just a couple of years ago? Molesting old women and children and men and this is for, WHAT??

IF terrorists were actually running the country this is how I might expect it to be. This isn't 'fighting terrorism' this is giving in to terrorism.

Fortunately there is a bill in Congres and in several states to try to put a stop to these egregious abuses and many, many people working to end this once and for all.

As for 'don't fly if you don't like it'? What kind of talk is that? We have a right to fly, to travel unmolested by the US Government. And I hope it won't be long before these practices become criminal, which is what the Texas law intended to do, and good for them. It IS criminal.

To say we should not fly, when we have done absolutely nothing wrong, is just plain unacceptable.

[AlabamaLibrul]

8. No it's not acceptable to me. I show that by refusing to fly in a public airport in the US.

I am not of the delusion that I am going to change anything about the structure of the TSA, however.

Obama's DHS has decided to move the security theatre to the next level. Take it up with them.

Me, I choose not to fly. That's something I can do right now to improve my personal situation, instead of subjecting myself to it and then going to the media later. It's not like people haven't heard, by now, what happens when you go to an airport these days.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Read on the VIPER program

TSA is coming to you soon too.

So what will you do when they start searching all? STAY HOME?

[AlabamaLibrul]

15. I resemble that remark a bit much as it is

Hell if I know, maybe take one last round of good ol American security on a one-way trip to Canada.

Unfortunately I see the TSA as something that the people cannot stop, for it relies on what I admit is a necessity to many (air travel) as opposed to what anyone thinks is fair.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Yes they can be stopped

or rather modified. TSA is not the problem, since you need security. It is how they have done this... purely theater.

And no, air travel is not something that is fair and CANADA uses similar systems as well...

But UNLIKE the US... they do more security and less theater.

And as I said, TSA is moving to train stations, bus stations and YOUR CAR next.

So yes THEY MUST be stopped in this bullshit. You can chose not to fly... some of us do not have that choice,

[Dept of Beer]

19. Yes. Agreeed. America will not need prisons very soon since

we will all be living it on the outside.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cstanleytech]

99. Well yes if you a prisoner in custody being transported or

have been drafted into some nations military you dont have a choice, otherwise though it is a choice.

[nadinbrzezinski]

106. You try to travel to Hawaii in a reasonable time

go on...

Oh and you try to move in Alaska in a reasonable time.

Oh don't get me started on Guam or the US Virgin Islands.

:shakes head:

And this does not even take into account FOREIGN travel.

[cstanleytech]

164. Except

you only said no choice and by boat is far more viable than it was when the only option was via sail.

[nadinbrzezinski]

166. By boat is not as viable as you think

but you keep thinking that ok.

And justify all TSA is doing in the mame of security theater... which is what it is.

Yes, fifty years ago there was regular traffic, these days not so much... unless you are in a cargo ship.

[cstanleytech]

171. Asking what we should do instead if people object to TSA

isnt supporting TSA nor is pointing out that no one is really forcing you to fly but you can claim it is if you want to believe it is /pat /pat

[nadinbrzezinski]

174. And justifying this by saying you can avoid this by not flying

is just stupid, GOOGLE the Viper program...

Trains, ships and automobiles are next.

So what is next take my bike?

Oh wait, then we will have checkpoints.

At what point are you going to say ENOUGH IS FUCKING FRACKING ENOUGH?

For the record I am not saying dismantle TSA, or get rid of security, What I am saying is get rid of the TSA dog and pony show. It is not about security but fracking control, social control

[cstanleytech]

187. Hold on

I said flying is a choice for most people unless as I pointed out if you are a prisoner being transported or have been drafted in some military, I did not say you can avoid potential dangers by traveling some other way.

Edit: I just realized you might be referring to "what we should do instead if people object to TSA" I meant what suggestions as in ways to make sure the flights are safe other than the TSA doing searches like they are now, so was that what you meant?

[suffragette]

18. It's possible to realize something is happening and to not accept or condone it

The House Committee on Un-American Activities is an example of this. This was also action taken by the US Gov't that was depicted as necessary for our safety.
But it wasn't and people speaking out about it and exposing it as wrong helped to bring it to an end.

The same needs to be done here. This was intrusive and bordered on abusive.

It should not continue.

[cstanleytech]

104. Ok how do we make it safer for us to fly without risk of someone planting a bomb

or taking over the plane and crashing it into more skyscrapers? Power of prayer perhaps? Four leaf clovers? Rabbits feet (not so lucky for the rabbit btw)?

[SDuderstadt]

107. Hardly anyone here wants to address the...

public safety aspects of the situation.

It's more fun to scapegoat the TSA.

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[suffragette]

117. If you're talking about process, using dogs would seem viable

and a method for the passenger with a disability to retain her dignity.

At this juncture, I would say there is more risk of people "taking over the plane and crashing it into more skyscrapers" with private aircraft since their personnel likely do not have to face the scrutiny airline employees of large airlines. Nor have I heard anything about their doors being secured, something that has been done and that I support as a genuine security measure which has more impact on that scenario than intrusive searches of passengers. So, do you support having all private owners, passengers and staff searched with the same measures TSA applies to the flying public?

[cstanleytech]

156. I thought dogs were already being used before 9/11 and even before Lockerbie?

As for more a risk with private planes ya there probably is but so far they havent tried anything with those but they have with large airplanes.

[suffragette]

170. Security should be about addressing past and present hazards also, shouldn't it?

"they haven't tried anything with those" is not a very compelling argument.

As far as dogs and 911 goes, what was there for them to detect? Supposedly they used items such as box cutters which were, at the time, legal to bring on-board.

[cstanleytech]

172. Oh my

why I wonder if extensive searches then could have found what they used then if dogs couldnt, how shocking of an idea.

[suffragette]

175. This makes no sense as a sentence

I have no clue what you are trying to say.

[cstanleytech]

185. Well, we agree on something.

[tblue37]

25. But it is precisely stories like this that will help raise awareness to the

point that more and more people will stop flying--and eventually, when the airliens really start going broke, they might pressure their politicians into rolling this crap back a bit.

We don't have our own politicians, but airlines are owned by very weathy and, I assume, well-connected people and groups of people. I am sure they have access to some politicians they have purchased.

[Dept of Beer]

17. But you see it is all very reasonable.

The government fell down on 9/11 and hadn't done its job in protecting its real estate.

This grandmother albeit sick, might be the first adult diaper bomber working for OBL's ghost.

It only follows that they would want to humiliate her in any way possible so that another valuable object, a commercial air liner, isn't lost to the air line.

Citizens are a secondary concern...unless they make millions.

[pnwmom]

22. What's unacceptable to me is that the family

was putting her on a flight from Florida to Michigan, wearing a soiled diaper, and with no clean ones available.

In this case, she was lucky that she was "molested." Her relative had to clean her up and find a clean Depends for her.

[boppers]

31. Yeah, that outrage seems mighty selective...

"How dare you violate my elder, while I'm treating her like trash... that's MY job."

[pecwae]

36. How do you know

the diaper wasn't soiled while waiting in the security line at the airport? Yeah, that lady sure was lucky to have been treated in such a manner. So damn lucky.

[pnwmom]

49. It doesn't matter. She would still have needed a fresh diaper

over that long a trip. This was a 95 year old who was dying from leukemia. OF COURSE she would need to travel with extra diapers. Anyone who travels with someone who needs diapers -- adult or child -- should be more responsible than that.

Which would be worse for the woman? Five or 10 minutes embarrassment with TSA? Or 5 hours of sitting in a soiled diaper? (You don't think that's humiliating?)

Get real.

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. Actually you are using one thing to justifiy

the rights violation... amazing.

By the way,,, yes diapers could be used to conceal explosives... that is why you use DOGS... far more effective by the way... but I guess we will use anything to justify the police state tactics, She was a lucky one... since she needed a new diaper.

There are days I wonder if Americans know the real meaning of freedom any longer,

[sabrina 1]

55. 'She was lucky that she was molested'

Unbelievable!

Her clean diapers were most likely in her baggage. It is more than likely that she would not have needed to change until she got off the plane had she not been so grossly mistreated by total strangers in uniform at the airport. She probably soiled the diaper from fear, which has happened to a lot of other disabled travelers as a result of the abuses they are being subjected to at the airport.

But let me understand this. Would you be okay with inspecting every old person's diaper (or other disabled individuals') at the airport to make sure they don't need to change them before boarding a plane?

It's not enough to excuse these egregious tactics because of a threat of terror. You are now saying they are a good idea to make sure everyone's underwear is clean??

let me ask you something. Is there ANY length they might go to that you wouldn't find some ridiculous excuse to try to defend them?

Did you support Bush's efforts to install them btw?

[pnwmom]

61. In her particular case, she was lucky. Better a few minutes discomfort with the TSA

than hours with a soiled diaper on the flight.

What good would clean diapers do in the baggage compartment? That's no excuse. You can't say it's "more than likely" she wouldn't have soiled her diaper if she hadn't gone through TSA. You don't know that. This was a 95 year old dying from leukemia. Dying people have issues with bowel control. If she hadn't already soiled her diaper, she could have done it when the flight experienced turbulence. Or when she ate something that disagreed with her. Or just because she was a very sick old lady and these things happen.

Regardless, when traveling with someone who wears diapers, a responsible person keeps spares handy -- not in the baggage department.

[sabrina 1]

63. She was molested at the airport by a bunch of total strangers.

Your attempts to deflect from that fact are, to be honest, some of the worst I have seen so far regarding attempting to defend these vile, abusive practices against American citizens.

Fortunately there are members of Congress attempting to stop them, and a bi-partisan effort in several states, and that will grow as more and more of these abuses are reported.

I will send this story to Rep. Chaffetz who sponsored the Bill that is in Congress, as I am sure others will.

My suggestion to you is, if you are going to try to defend the indefensible, don't do it by telling people that abuse is 'good for them'. That's never been a very successful defense.

[pnwmom]

64. The total strangers were doing their job, unlike her daughter,

who neglected to bring along any spare diapers for a 5 hour flight.

[sabrina 1]

66. I get that you'd support uniformed government officials

inspecting the underwear of American citizens to make sure they are clean at the airport. Who doesn't want the government, not only in your bedroom but in your underwear after all, keeping America safe? You've made that clear. Which is why I said your attempt to excuse these abuses is probably one of the worst I have seen so far.

Would you support forced vaginal inspections also? After all a good side effect of that would be that someone might have some kind of vaginal infection they didn't know about because they can't afford healthcare (over 50 million actually).

She was molested by uniformed strangers in violation of her 4th amendment rights, which she did not lose because of a dirty diaper, most likely caused by the assault on her person to begin with.

As for her family, kudos to them that she has lived such a long life. Obviously they love her very much and have taken very good care of her.

It is shameful to see someone on the internet, who knows nothing about these innocent people, willing to smear a family they know nothing about to try to defend the egregious assault on our constitutional rights by these practices.

[pnwmom]

68. You keep saying that the TSA "most likely" caused her to soil her diaper

when you know nothing of the kind. This was a terminally ill 95 year old. Dirty diapers come with the territory.

She wasn't molested by anyone, the TSA agent was doing her job. And her daughter should have had some spare diapers with her.

[sabrina 1]

83. You keep accusing people you know nothing about

of being negligent of their elderly relative, who somehow managed to live to be 95 years old without uniformed agents of the government forcing her to remove her clothing including her underwear in public places when all the known facts point to evidence that totally contradicts your smears against them.

Disgusting, truly disgusting what the public is being subjected to so that Michael Chertoff can make even more money from the politics of fear. There aren't enough adjectives to describe how reprehensible it is.

I assume you were as vigilently opposing the ACLU and other civil rights orgs throughout the Bush era when they fought placing these machines in our airports?

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[woo me with science]

91. [phone]

Good god.

[inna]

135. OMG, I could not agree with you more. Disgusting is an understatement.

[suffragette]

101. How would they manage to change her diapers in flight?

It's reasonable in this case to have the diapers in the baggage so they could be changed after the flight.
It would be difficult, if not impossible, to safely change them on the plane in flight.

You are just trying to shift blame from TSA, who treated her atrociously, to the family, who were doing their best to take her to be with loved ones at her death.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mimosa]

132. Wheelchairs ARE Allowed on board. Some people can't walk.

Duderstatd I have flown with disabled people in wheelchairs.

YOU don't know wth you're talking about.

http://www.google.com/webhp?sa=N&tab=lw#hl=en&xhr=t&q=wheelchairs+on+planes&cp=17&pf=p&sclient=psy&site=webhp&source=hp&aq=0&aqi=&aql=&oq=wheelchairs+on+pl&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=5ef78bb68ade800c&biw=1415&bih=628

But you are hijacking the topic by insulting a family.

I'm supposing a couple of posters here have those meaningless TSA theater jobs or have invested heavily in the security companies.

[SDuderstadt]

139. The wheelchairs are wider than the...

aisles. No one is left sitting in a wheelchair on a commercial flight.

Please.

[Mimosa]

167. Hijacking again? LOL

Thread hijackers try to make it about the lady's family not being prepared or about wheelchairs. *rolling eyes*

It's really off topic.



From Delta's website:


Delta Wheelchair Services
Personal Wheelchair Services
Cargo dimensions on Delta Connection Carriers
Delta Wheelchair Services
Airport Wheelchairs

We have wheelchairs available for use at airport locations. Request this service when making reservations; and upon arrival at the airport notify one of our passenger service personnel that you require a wheelchair for transportation to the departure gate.
Aisle Chairs

We also have available a specially designed wheelchair for our non-ambulatory passengers to use in reaching their seat when boarding and deplaning our aircraft. We call these special wheelchairs "aisle chairs" or "boarding chairs." We suggest you request this service when making reservations so we can have the equipment available at your departure gate.
Onboard Wheelchairs

Every one of our mainline aircraft has an onboard wheelchair. These wheelchairs are specially designed to fit the aisle of our aircraft and may be used by our passengers to move to and from the lavatory. Our flight attendants are trained in the operation of this wheelchair and will assist you with its use. However, they are not required to lift or carry you. Since this onboard wheelchair is not used outside the aircraft, it will always remain onboard. Arrangements can be made for you to use an airport chair at any connecting point.

[Ichingcarpenter]

67. maybe she spoiled herself because of the Search?

And would have lasted the five hours without the terror she got by the search?

Unfricking believable.

[proud2BlibKansan]

95. And maybe the extra diaper was in her carryon bag that TSA still had

[SDuderstadt]

118. And her daughter couldn't have requested it?

Please.

[proud2BlibKansan]

123. Oh please yourself

Have you ever asked to get something out of a bag the TSA has in their possession?

Go ahead and try.

[SDuderstadt]

124. The TSA requested the diaper be changed...

are you saying the TSA would withhold the diaper?

Please.

[woo me with science]

200. This is just about the lowest attempt to deflect from an argument that I have ever seen on DU.

:puke:

[SDuderstadt]

69. Of course...

Sabrina neglects to mention that, of the 2 million people who fly each day, less than 2% are subjected to secondary screening. Of the 40K passengers subjected to secondary screening each day, why do less than a handful submit complaints?

Of course, it's easy to create a false impression that the situation is far worse than it is. For example, all you have to do is salt in lots of emotion-laden words like "molested" to scapegoat the TSA.

[csziggy]

79. EVERY person in a wheelchair trigger gets secondary screening

Not "less than 2%" - every single person in a wheelchair.

From the link in the OP: "Wheelchairs trigger certain protocols, including pat-downs and possible swabbing for explosives, Koshetz said." "Sari Koshetz, a spokeswoman for the Transportation Security Administration in Miami"

EVERY person with an implant gets secondary screening.

How is this not discriminatory? There should be common sense ways to reduce the harassment of those with medical needs for these items.

[SDuderstadt]

80. I didn't say 2% of people in wheelchairs...

I said 2% of all passengers.

[proud2BlibKansan]

81. Thai is just disgusting. Lucky she was molested?!?!?

You should be ashamed that you posted that comment.

[SDuderstadt]

82. Notice how the word "molested" was...

inside quotation marks. The poster did not agree with the use of the word, nor do I.

[proud2BlibKansan]

88. Then she shouldn't have used that word

[SDuderstadt]

92. The person she responded to...

used it. She set it off in quotation marks, as she should have.

[proud2BlibKansan]

93. The person she responded to was appalled by this act

She on the other hand said the 95 year old terminally ill woman was "lucky" to be molested. THAT is a repulsive comment.

[SDuderstadt]

96. You left out the quotation marks again...

the poster is correct. The patdown (not molesting) revealed she needed her diaper changed.

Trying to win this argument by using inflammatory language isn't working.

[proud2BlibKansan]

100. And your defense of TSA isn't working either

Frankly, that's also repulsive.

[SDuderstadt]

102. So, no one is allowed to take a position counter to yours?

Isn't that rather authoritarian?

[scarletwoman]

119. "authoritarian"? Wow, really lame. I don't see anyone telling you to STFU.

Let me ask you the same question, "So, no one is allowed to take a position counter to YOURS?"

Because that is precisely what the other poster did: take a position counter to yours.

And that's what you call "authoritarian", huh?

[SDuderstadt]

120. Read post # 118...

In the meantime, have you seen me tell anyone that they are not entitled to their own opinion? Have you ever seen me refer to someone as an "an Qaeda defender"? Yet, those on your "side" of the question have no qualms whatsoever about questioning the motivation, good faith and character of anyone who thinks the TSA and what they do is being unfairly maligned.

Doing so is an attempt to shut down debate, as opposed to arguing facts and ideas.

[scarletwoman]

137. Frankly, I find myself "questioning the motivation, good faith and character" of quite a few posters

here. However, I generally keep such thoughts to myself because I prefer not to have my posts deleted.

And as for opposing sides of ANY issue, such accusations of bad faith are hurled as often by one side as the other. I do not think that you have been particularly victimized. Nor are you particularly innocent when it comes to attempting to shut down debate, DUDE.

In any case, it is not "authoritarian" for someone to state that they find your defense of the TSA "repulsive". It is simply expressing an opinion about your opinion. It is not an attempt to stifle your ability to continue arguing your point, should you choose to do so.

And I quite expect that you will so choose.

sw

[SDuderstadt]

138. Show me one example where...

I have questioned the good faith, motivation or character of another poster.

And, please don't give me that "dude is an insult" chestnut

Take your time.

[scarletwoman]

144. That's hilarious! Do you honestly think I'm going to waste any of my time and energy looking up

a bunch of your posts? :rofl:

In any case, my exact words were these: "Nor are you particularly innocent when it comes to attempting to shut down debate, DUDE."

You're doing it right now, in fact. You've turned this part of the thread into an argument all about YOU and how YOU have been subjected to the "authoritarianism" of the "my side".

So, instead of discussing the authoritarianism of the State Security apparatus, we're discussing your perception of the authoritarianism of the people who oppose the authoritarianism of the State Security apparatus.

You ought to be happy!

sw

[SDuderstadt]

147. How is that...

"shutting down debate"?

Don't bother to answer. I'm done.

[Bonobo]

150. Scarlet Woman has clearly seen the modus operandi and shut it down skillfully!

"You've turned this part of the thread into an argument all about YOU and how YOU have been subjected to the "authoritarianism" of the "my side"."

"So, instead of discussing the authoritarianism of the State Security apparatus, we're discussing your perception of the authoritarianism of the people who oppose the authoritarianism of the State Security apparatus."



YES, YES, YES!!!! OMG, I LOVE YOU SCARLETWOMAN!!!

[scarletwoman]

157. Aw shucks, thanks, Bonobo! You're one of my favorite people here!

:blush:

Seriously, some things are just obvious, you know?

:hug:
sw

[Pooka Fey]

155. +1. very well said.

[tekisui]

160. It would be hard to provide links to his posts, most of them are deleted.

[scarletwoman]

161. !

:spank:

:hi:
sw

[SDuderstadt]

163. There are 30...

"undeleted" posts from me in this OP alone.

LOL!

[Gormy Cuss]

109. What if the woman didn't want her daughter to know?

There's no indication in the article that the woman isn't of sound mind. Maybe she wanted to trade a little dignity for the risk of sores associated with sitting in her own effluence. Having dealt with several dying elders in recent years, small elements of control mattered a great deal to them, as did minimizing the role reversal where child takes on the role of the parent.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[scarletwoman]

52. Shame indeed. Brilliant quote from Solzhenitsyn, as well.

We didn't love freedom enough.

It's too true. :cry:

sw

[Pooka Fey]

42. Keep on defending the status quo.

And when they the TSA starts doing vaginal and rectal searches, because a person could easily hide explosives in there, after all, you can defend that too. Or just stop traveling, if you don't like it. Because the TSA is now doing metro, bus and train searches. Be a good prole, now and bend over. Don't forget to say "thank you" to the nice security person, either.

[SDuderstadt]

72. Strawman argument n/t

[Pooka Fey]

86. Reasonable supposition. nt

[SDuderstadt]

87. Pure speculation is not a...

"reasonable supposition". It's a calculated attempt to gin up outrage about something for which you have zero empirical evidence.

[Pooka Fey]

97. Don't I have the right to be kept safe from anal explosives while flying?

[SDuderstadt]

98. You have zero evidence this will be imposed...

your "slippery slope" argument isn't very convincing.

[Pooka Fey]

114. Bwah-HAH-HAHA You are TOO FUNNY. Zero Evidence.

And the original post about the poor 92 year old woman's strip search and the TSA ordering her daughter to change her mom's "Depends" so they could continue probing her private parts is about WHAT EXACTLY? GODDAMN. :banghead:

on edit - 95 year old woman. Jeezus.

[Name removed]

115. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

121. Please produce evidence...

she was "vaginally or rectally" searched.

[Pooka Fey]

125. Please produce evidence that she was NOT.

[SDuderstadt]

126. Are you seriously asking me to prove a negative?

"Arguments from igorance" aren't very convincing.

[Pooka Fey]

127. Are you seriously suggesting that TSA doesn't touch privates during screenings?

[SDuderstadt]

128. Do you have any evidence they...

"vaginally or rectally searched" her or not.

You are presuming things not in evidence.

[Pooka Fey]

130. Describe the difference between "touching a person's privates" and a vaginal/rectal search first .

[SDuderstadt]

133. Look up the definition of...

"vagina" and "rectum".

They aren't "external".

[Pooka Fey]

136. The Anus and Vagina. Internal or External organs? Only fill in one bubble.

on edit: Actually I'm answering a post that makes no sense. We are now firmly in Idiot nation.

[SDuderstadt]

140. You didn't say "anus"...

You claimed she was searched "vaginally" and "rectally". Please tell us how someone's rectum or vagina can be searched through their clothes.

I'm done.

[Pooka Fey]

141. No, first give me the post number where I claimed a vaginal/search was conducted.

And I much too modest to describe what you ask. Try my favorite advice columnist, Dan Savage of Savage Love.

[SDuderstadt]

143. You're going around in circles now...

look at a diagram of the human body. I'm done.

[Pooka Fey]

146. Still waiting for you to provide that post number.

[SDuderstadt]

152. Try post...

#125.

[Pooka Fey]

154. Wrong, Try again.

[SDuderstadt]

159. In post # 125...

you demanded that I produce evidence that she was not searched rectally or vaginally.

Duh.

[Pooka Fey]

142. Please describe the exact anatomical difference between

the rectum and the anus.

What the hell, I'm feeling generous - "Rectum - the comparatively straight, terminal section of the intestine, ending in the anus."

[SDuderstadt]

145. Pooka...

With all due respect, no TSA agent can search either a rectum or vagina with their entire hand through anyone's clothing. I'm done with your strawman argument.

[Pooka Fey]

151. I said "touch". You falsely claimed that I said "search", or you can list a post #

I said that cavity searches are a reasonable supposition, considering that good citizens like you will continue to accept the TSA power grabs, and gladly sacrifice your constitutional rights to freedom from unreasonable search for a false sense of security.

[SDuderstadt]

153. Show me where I advocated...

cavity searches. I didn't.

That's why your earlier post was a strawman.

Again, I ask. How does one "touch" an internal organ?

[scarletwoman]

158. I LOVE that subject line!

:D

[proud2BlibKansan]

94. +1

[Bluenorthwest]

43. It is not even posted as news, but as a subject in 'General

Discussion'. So the status of the story as news or not news is quite beside the point.

[Xithras]

54. Yes, it is news.

If the police in Alabama started shooting a black person every day, wouldn't each instance be news? Or would we write it off as "just another dead black person...it's a regular thing now".

A government abusing its citizens is ALWAYS news. If we refuse to accept it, eventually we'll win. Keep pushing beyond that, and maybe we'll get some of these people prosecuted. It may take decades, but we'll eventually win.

[Matariki]

57. Democracy and liberty appears to require contant vigilance.

What you are saying is akin to giving up on correcting any injustice. Where would we be if everyone shared your attitude?

[Desertrose]

65. BS. Just because this is "how it is now", doesn't mean it's OK.

No one needs to be subjected to this bullshit.

It doesn't make us any safer and being fool enough to believe it just allows this crap to continue.

[piratefish08]

202. you've accepted the new reality very well. coming soon to train stations, bus stations and

sidewalks near you.

[PDJane]

4. All this does is discourage people from flying in and out

of the US. It doesn't make anyone safer. It's theatre, and it gets everyone used to the police state that is coming. Period. And that's all it's meant to do.

[GodlessBiker]

5. I fly fairly often. I'd say that over half of the people they pull aside are over 65.

Perhaps so they can fulfill their quotas of searching people while getting the least resistance from people they search.

[peopleb4money]

7. People need to finally wake up and say enough is enough.

How bout for a change we get rid of one of these national security bureaucracies. They're like herpes, and they never seem to go away either. How bout for once, we end one of these agencies, like the CIA, ATF, FBI, NSA, or DEA.

[CarmanK]

12. TSA needs better guidelines, and special circum boarding passes!

this is a lady, who is obviously a US citizen, she is handicapped and personally no threat to anyone. The search was over bearing, but so many times, the bombs show up in the most unsuspecting places. And there would have been hell to pay, if a bomb got aboard that plane. There needs to be some common sense to these searches. Why couldn't a woman of her circumstances receive some kind of pre-boarding card or special exemption from search like some frequent and business flyers do???
And where are there any examples in all of the war on terror, that an old woman blew herself up??
Most of those idiots are young males, fanatics who want to die for a cause. It is rare that a woman would do such a thing.
These kinds of indignities are insulting and most of all demeaning to our democracy. Who designed these searches any way?? Who trained these people?? there has to be a better way!!

[peopleb4money]

24. The Irony is that even if they had scanners at the time, the 911 hijackers would have still boarded

They would have seen that the box cutters were under the required length and let them on. I don't really buy the official story though, but this is going by its standard. I'd still like some explanations that the Commission Report didn't cover, like the pools of molten steel reported by fire men and the nano-thermitic material detected in samples of the rubble. They didn't even make any mention of Building 7. A whole other building collapsed at the WTC besides the two towers, and the Report made no mention. Its full of holes.

[SDuderstadt]

26. There were not pools of...

"molten steel" unless you are claiming people can identify it merely by looking at it.

[peopleb4money]

28. Its not just speculation of footage, but ground crews said they saw molten metal in the rubble.

You can look up the footage of 911 NYC firemen explaining how ground zero was like a foundry. There were even fused, steal beams unearthed and small, iron spheres found in debris samples.

Anyway, that's not the point I'm trying to make. Supposing terrorists boarded planes with box cutters, they would have gotten on anyway, even if they had body scanners at the time, since the rules allowed them to board with those knives.

[SDuderstadt]

29. Now you have changed the claim from...

"molten steel" to "molten metal". And, of course, aluminum was quite prevalent throuout the building.

As well, significant welding was done during construction. Welding uses thermite.

[peopleb4money]

34. Yah, steal is a metal, and I'm not trying to change the argument

I know there was aluminum, but it wouldn't have glowed in daylight like you see in some of the footage. Al looks silvery, sort of like mercury. when its molten. The official explanation for this was that plastic and materials from the offices mixed into the aluminum and caused it to glow, but demonstrations from a number of physicists show that doesn't hold up, since those lighter materials float on the surface of molten metal as they burn up.

It doesn't explain the quantities of molten metal (steel or aluminum) that were found at ground zero. It doesn't explain the way some of the beams warped and fused. There were huge, massive balls of fused metal and concrete the size of cars unearthed there. It would be impossible for burning jet fuel to do that, whether it was aluminum or steel, or both.

Anyway, I wasn't trying to argue about 911. I just wanted to note that I didn't buy the officials story when explaining how the scanning machines wouldn't have done anything to prevent 911 from happening, even if it was true. I might start a thread on 911 sometime, but I wanna keep the board clear for people who want to stay on topic.

[boppers]

33. "A whole other building collapsed at the WTC besides the two towers"....

You realize that such a statement disqualifies your opinion?

Because it shows blinding ignorance?

7 different buildings suffered full or partial collapse.

12 others suffered major damage.

http://www.history.com/interactives/9-11-maps

Others have pointed out that firefighters cannot (and do not) assay metals (thus, they don't know what molten steel is).... but you might benefit from this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561#

It takes about three hours to watch, but explains away most of the the tinfoil.

edit: add an "s'

[Hippo_Tron]

73. Before 9/11 nobody had used boxcutters to take over a plane

Your logic of "only able bodied young males have done this, thus far, so we should only search able bodied young males (especially ones with Middle Eastern names and dark skin)" is equivalent of going back to September 10th, 2001 and saying we should let people on a plane with boxcutters.

Either we search everybody or we search nobody. Being more outraged over searching a 95 year old woman than a 20 year old able bodied male is ridiculous. An astronomically small percentage of people flying on planes, regardless of their age, race, sex, skin color are going to blow up the plane.

[boppers]

179. "It is rare that a woman would do such a thing. "

Uhm. No.

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

[BluegrassDem]

9. And the moment 80+ year old people are exempt from security

I can assure you, some terrorist will use an old person to smuggle a bomb on a plane, then all hell will break loose and Obama would get the blame.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. How about some real security instead of the theater?

I fly, now often, out of the Mexico City Airport... and they do less theater and more security... imagine that... I feel much safer flying out of that airport than any US Airport... it starts with silly shit like checking what goes into the belly of the plane for silly shit like explosives. Read on the preferred shipper program in the US for a clue of how much theater we do..

[pecwae]

38. So, your concern

is the President getting the blame? Nice.

[sabrina 1]

46. That is exactly how they want you to think.

What if a terrorist blows up a mall? Will Obama get the blame for that too? We better move these security measures to malls also.

And what about Football Games or any other sports event? To save Obama, we meed to start molesting people everywhere, right?

What about automobiles? Supposing there's a suicide bomber in a car somewhere? Should they be outside everyone's home searching them before they get into their cars every day?

How about buses, trains, taxis?

Why do people think this could only happen on a plane?

The sky could fall also, which is about as likely to happen as that poor old woman having a bomb in her diaper?

How much freedom are you willing to give up in order to feel safe?

And since dying by terror is one of the least threats to Americans, what do we do about all the others? Should we just wall in the entire country?

And what if that plane had simply crashed, after all this abuse of passengers? How do we prevent that from happening?

And since when does the reputation of a politician take precedence over the American people's rights?

I suppose we should ask, 'why do we even need a Constitution since all it does if we observe it, is make is less safe? Let's just get rid of it altogether so people stop whining about their rights!

[scarletwoman]

51. Brava! Brava! Extraordinary post!

:applause:

I suppose we should ask, 'why do we even need a Constitution since all it does if we observe it, is make is less safe? Let's just get rid of it altogether so people stop whining about their rights!'

sw

[Hippo_Tron]

74. So, are you okay with stopping the screening entirely?

Or do we only screen able bodied men under the age of 40 and especially those with funny sounding names. I have no problem with your position, if you believe we should just stop screening for everyone period. But I think a lot of people are okay as long as we're only screening the "right people".

[woo me with science]

48. Why did I get an image of Frank Burns saying that?

:puke:

[pnwmom]

21. Ironically, this particular woman might be better off that she got searched.

Otherwise, she'd have spent 5 or 6 hours wearing a soiled diaper on a plane. Her skin would have been raw.

What was this family thinking? Not having a clean Depends to put on her?

She's not going to have to deal with TSA again, thank goodness. But I hope her family will do a better job of taking care of her from here on out. Elderly people have extremely delicate skin and shouldn't be left in a soiled diaper for hours. But this family was going to put her on a plane in Florida -- wearing a soiled diaper -- for a flight all the way to Michigan. With no clean Depends available. Poor woman!

[PDJane]

23. I hate to tell you this,

but the posts on this thread have convinced me that the powers-that-be don't have to do any more brainwashing and fearmongering to get the citizens of the US to accept fascism. It's already there, and you've already accepted the apparatus. Homeland Security indeed. Instead of asking for your papers, they search your children and your phone records, and no-one finds anything wrong with it.

Those searches aren't doing a damn thing. A determined terrorist could board those planes, checked or not checked, and do damage. Searching your grandmother, a sick and disabled woman in a wheelchair, isn't going to save anyone, and if you think it will, you're too far gone to reason with.

The whole argument is pathetic. Yes, there are terrorists. The best way to fight them is to stop blowing up their people. Stay home. Fix the infrastructure. Spend money on cleaning up the planet, and pursuing renewable energy. Stop spending money on making grandmothers uncomfortable and small children scream. Obey international laws. Stop supporting Israel's territorial ambitions.

You'd be amazed how much better life would become for everyone.

[Ichingcarpenter]

30. Gleichschaltung n/t

[kath]

84. Thanks - I learned a new word. And that's EXACTLY what's going on.

[boppers]

35. I hate to respond, but:

Unless you're an over-70 person living in the US, chances are you have lived with it for many, many, years, and didn't object.

As far as "The best way to fight them is to stop blowing up their people.", I'm guessing you might not know who Manson is.

Crazy is everywhere.

[scarletwoman]

58. Charles Manson?!?! So what does that mean? If terrorists don't get us, crazed murderers will?

And? So we need a police state no matter what?

[Fuddnik]

108. You wonder what happened to our party?

Look around you. Some people will tolerate and cheer ANYTHING.

[scarletwoman]

165. "Fear is the mindkiller." It's very sad. (nt)

[boppers]

178. It means that attacks and violence come whether or not we're blowing people up.

"Yes, there are terrorists. The best way to fight them is to stop blowing up their people." Was the line. I was pointing out that crazy can't be fixed by not blowing people up.

[PDJane]

191. You get a lot fewer crazies hating you

When you aren't doing things to steal their resources and stir them up.

There are crazies anywhere and everywhere, but they tend to pick on you less if you're not in their territory. I might point out that,since the domestic crazies are mostly on the ground with high powered firearms, airport security isn't going to do much about them, either.

In fact, the people who are mostly inconvenienced by this theatre are the law-abiding citizens being groped and pushed and treated as though they are the problem.

[pecwae]

37. Very well said.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. They do not need to get to the plane

That line going to security is such an easy target.

But if your objective is to destroy the RIGHTS Americans used to enjoy, why bother?

If it to crash it economically... well mission accomplished...

[Desertrose]

60. Yes, this exactly! More people IN an airport than on one plane.

But what better way to cow everyone and instill fear than to invade everyone's privacy and personal space.

I cannot believe the comments on this thread....and how many people find this TSA bullying acceptable!

[scarletwoman]

56. Excellent post!

[demmiblue]

78. +1 n/t

[Ignis]

203. +1

[Ichingcarpenter]

32. I'd be curious the about the age of the daughter

She messed up forgetting the depends but she could be old too. Still the TSA could have an advance checking for someone like wheelchair bound woman that could expedite and make this whole crap unnecessary.

[woo me with science]

39. K&R nt

[LooseWilly]

47. It sounds like people are CLAMOURING for profiling...

The searches shouldn't be random, but aimed at the people that *I* want to see searched?...

[Hippo_Tron]

77. Yep exactly...

They've bought into this FOX News fallacy of "Thus far, people carrying bombs onto planes have only been able bodied 20-something males with one way tickets, no checked bags, with funny sounding names, and brown skin, so therefore we know that only people who fit that profile will ever be carrying bombs onto a plane in the future, and we don't need to bother screening anybody else.

There are some on this thread whose position is lets drop the screening altogether and I'm fine with that position. But the fallacy of only screening the people that "look suspicious" is way too prevalent.

[nadinbrzezinski]

90. When correctly done

and it is not what you think it is... but you would not know that since the way it's done in the US by police departments... suffice it to say I was profiled, so was my husband, when we flew out of Mexico City. Alas they have real security, and do silly shit like check baggage that goes into belly of plane for explosives. Read on the preferred shipping program in the US... and THINK about the more than obvious hole.

[LooseWilly]

201. Press the button—green=carry on... red=more searching...

that was how Mexico City security handled me on Friday when I left... and that felt pretty "random".

I'm curious to hear how the button profiled you and your husband? Or, did neither of you speak enough Spanish to understand... leaving the aduana to just steer you to a search rather than hold up the whole customs line trying to explain things to you?

[Azathoth]

198. Yup n/t

[Rex]

50. Well they heard the term 'explosive diarrhea' and since they all share

one braincell, told an elderly lady to remove her diaper for the sake of national security...yeah that is how far down the ladder we are now.

[stockholmer]

70. in Swedish it is called 'rännskita' aka 'painting the bowl' (or wall if really bad)

:hurts: :rofl:

[demmiblue]

76. K&R (disgusting and shameful) n/t

[greytdemocrat]

105. The TSA

continue to prove they are a bunch of morons.

[Are_grits_groceries]

116. Searching 'all' of any group defeats the purpose.

If it is known that all of a group will be searched, then another method will be used. It has to be random. That keeps the uncertainty factor high. It would be hit or miss so that method would likely be used little if at all without spending time on searching 100% of a group.

It is impossible to search everybody and everything that we might want to search. Uncertainty has to be kept at a high level. The terrorists have been recruiting people who don't fit the old 9/11 profile. They are trying to find US citizens and those of other races. The methodology and theory has to be frequently reviewed. We are already being left in the dust by those who are smart enough to try something effective I'll bet. Changing any system that is put in place is like turning a huge ship. It won't be fast or very complete for a while.

We need to think out of the box and aim for more mobility of searchers and develop new technology for them.

A statistics professor I had illustrated the point of uncertainty with a golf game he played. He bet his partner he could beat him if he would be allowed to yell just twice during the round. His partner was a much better golfer so he just shrugged and took the bet. On the first tee, the professor yelled in the middle of his swing. He didn't have time to stop it, and he shanked the ball into the hinterlands. The professor never yelled again, but the other golfer played well below his usual level. He was always aware of the possibility of another yell at any point. It was impossible for him to shake off the feeling that his swing would be interrupted no matter how he tried.

Randomness and uncertainty aren't foolproof, but nothing is. They are the best way to keep people guessing if they want to try something.

MEANWHILE: Only 20 percent of U.S.-bound cargo screened for bombs
About 20 percent of the nine billion pounds of air cargo that comes from overseas each year is physically checked for bombs; at some overseas airports, cargo is checked for bombs before being put on planes, but that screening could be below U.S. security standards, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO); the TSA may start forcing airlines to inspect suspicious cargo before a plane takes off from overseas. the agency is studying whether the tracking system can target certain U.S.-bound air cargo for screening prior to departure.
http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/only-20-percent-us-bound-cargo-screened-bombs

It can't all be searched either, but a shiteload of stuff gets through our borders every day.

[tekisui]

122. It is ridiculous for the TSA to claim she was any kind of security threat.

Such bullshit.

[nadinbrzezinski]

129. They could, there was the case of the two grannies

in Russia that brought a bomb on board.

BUT...

If you really fear that from a security stand point there is this really ancient technology... that can be trained, is cute, and all



For some reason our masters of the universe seem to not have discovered these cute little ones for this particular use... and I must say... far more efficient than what they do.

Which leads to the other conclusion. It has zero to do with security and all to do with intimidation.

[rdking647]

134. i didn't write this but it fits

Harlequin Novel, Updated.... 2011 Version:

He grasped me firmly, but gently, just above my elbow and guided me into a room, his room. Then he quietly shut the door and we were alone. He approached me soundlessly, from behind, and spoke in a low, reassuring voice close to my ear. "Just relax."

Without warning, he reached down and I felt his strong, calloused hands start at my ankles, gently probing, and moving upward along my calves, slowly but steadily. My breath caught in my throat.

I knew I should be afraid, but somehow I didn't care. His touch was so experienced, so sure. When his hands moved up onto my thighs, I gave a slight shudder, and partly closed my eyes. My pulse was pounding. I felt his knowing fingers caress my abdomen, my rib cage. And then, as he cupped my firm, full brea*ts in his hands, I inhaled sharply.

Probing, searching, knowing what he wanted, he brought his hands to my shoulders, slid them down my tingling spine and into my panties. Although I knew nothing about this man, I felt oddly trusting and expectant. This is a man, I thought. A man used to taking charge. A man not used to taking 'No' for an answer. A man who would tell me what he wanted. A man who would look into my soul and say . . . .




"Okay ma'am, you can board your flight now."

[leeroysphitz]

149. If we can't violate the dignity of our elderly then the terrerists win. n/t

[B-Stupid]

162. Like I said in the other thread, Fuck Napolitano

Shit like this is truly making me question this administration.

[struggle4progress]

168. Cleaning up dirty diapers ASAP is a matter of basic respect, whether the diaper is worn by

a one-month-old or a hundred-year-old

It's a matter of ordinary human courtesy to the diaper-wearer

In public places, it's also a matter of ordinary human courtesy to everybody else

What an insult to an old woman to assume she should stay filthy while traveling from Florida to Michigan! And what disregard for every other member of the public that has to be near the poor woman that whole time!

How hard can it be to pack some extra diapers and wipes?

[scarletwoman]

173. The lack of a spare diaper is NOT the point!

Not one of us knows why there wasn't a spare diaper.

Is the daughter herself elderly -- her mother is 95, the daughter could be at least 75 or older -- and simply forgot to pack one?

Was the mother wearing a clean diaper until the stress of the TSA search caused her to soil herself?

Maybe the mother is not habitually incontinent, and the diaper was simply an extra precaution for the flight that neither mother or daughter expected would need to be changed.

The missing spare diaper is NOT the problem here. The problem is the TSA putting a seriously ill wheelchair bound 95 year old through "enhanced screening", violating her dignity for absolutely no good reason.

It's not about keeping us "safe", it's about submission to authority. And a truly freedom-loving people will do all they can to fight it.

sw

[struggle4progress]

176. TSA frontliners asked woman to change her mother's dirty diaper. What pervs!

Then woman whined she didn't have another diaper. Wow! she really thought that complaint thru!

[scarletwoman]

177. They asked for the diaper to be changed in order to complete their search.

And since you are apparently determined to miss the larger point I won't bother you anymore.

[struggle4progress]

181. Not sure what you want. Screenings will end if enough people demand that; and then screenings

will promptly resume after the next airline incident

You would maybe like a rule "people in wheelchairs with full diapers are exempt from screening"? I guess I'll let you try to figure out for yourself, if you can, why nobody's going to spring for that

Back in the Bush years, there were proposals that people could pay a steep fee to undergo an extensive background check and then get a special ID allowing expedited pass-thru at airport security stations. A lot of us weren't real keen on that idea either

The story here is that a moron brought her diapered mother to the airport without spare diapers and, when TSA understandably asked her to change her mother's soiled diaper, complained to the public that she hadn't brought spare diapers. The moron apparently didn't care much if her mother had to sit in a dirty diaper on a flight from Florida to Minnesota

I'm sure her mother was thoroughly embarrassed by the whole affair, and it's unfortunate. If you see an intelligent way to avoid such situations, a lot of people would probably like to hear about it

[sabrina 1]

189. Btw, how do you know the daughter brought her mother to the

airport without a change of diaper? The article doesn't say that. It says that while she was in the 'search' area she was asked to take her mother to the bathroom and remove the diaper. She explained that her mother did not have a clean diaper 'WITH HER'. With her, in the bathroom! No doubt these people did not expect to dragged into a security area and asked to remove their clothing. Where were their carry-ons when they were in the bathroom?? How do YOU know whether or not their bags were in their possession at that point?

As if any of this matters anyhow, when the whole nightmare scenario is so thoroughly shocking, abusive and just plain stupid.

[scarletwoman]

192. It's amazing, isn't it? There's a *real* story, with real details, about the TSA subjecting a sick,

elderly woman in a wheelchair to an invasive search, against all common sense or decency.

But no, let's not get upset with our crotch-sniffing police state overlords!

Let's instead get upset about the missing spare diaper and express all kinds of judgement and condemnation based on nothing but wholly made-up unverifiable assumptions!

Gads! :banghead:

[sabrina 1]

194. It's a talking point. You can always recognize them

because you see them repeated over and over again by various people. It's odd that groups of people should have exactly the same 'thought's.

It was probably released by the TSA on a few boards and then all they have to do is sit back knowing that it will be picked up by those with a propensity for defending every new assault on our liberties so long as they are coming from their party.

People who think for themselves present their own arguments. Those with no acceptable arguments, use talking points that are prepared for them. This one is especially egregious.

I wouldn't be surprised if it came from Karl Rove. It has that Rovian flair to it, despicable, twisted and guaranteed to deflect BECAUSE it is so disgusting to blame the daughter, as decent people can be depended on to rightfully defend her.

But back to what they are trying to distract from.

Molesting 95 year old cancer patients at the airport is a crime and I hope the laws already written making it a crime get passed before we have to hear any more of these horror stories.

[woo me with science]

197. It's vile. It's disingenuous. It's slanderous. It's indefensible.

I have never seen the rhetoric at DU sink this low.

What the hell is happening to the Democratic Party.

[struggle4progress]

193. ... While going through security, the 95-year-old was taken by a TSA officer into a glassed-in area,

where a pat-down was performed, Weber said. An agent told Weber "they felt something suspicious on (her mother's) leg and they couldn't determine what it was" -- leading them to take her into a private, closed room. Soon after, Weber said, a TSA agent came out and told her that her mother's Depend undergarment was "wet and it was firm, and they couldn't check it thoroughly." The mother and daughter left to find a bathroom, at the TSA officer's request, to take off the adult diaper .. But she said her mother, a nurse for 65 years, "was very calm" despite being bothered by the fact that she had to go through the airport without underwear ...
TSA stands by officers after pat-down of elderly woman in Florida
By the CNN Wire Staff
June 26, 2011 10:26 p.m. EDT
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/26/florida.tsa.incident/

No spare, evidently

[sabrina 1]

180. Well, apparently this is a problem that must be addressed.

How many Americans have managed to sneak onto planes with dirty underwear up to now?

Finally the TSA has managed to save us from something.

Would you support a dirty underwear unit assigned specifically to the task of making sure no one from one-month-olds to 100 year olds get to fly without having their underwear checked by uniformed Government officials?

I have a feeling we could sell this to a section of the population if we really think about it! If they had a snazzy name! 'Dirty Underwear Seals'? No, wait, 'Operation Dirty Underwear'! Yes, that might sell. Keeping America safe from stinky diapers! :eyes:

WHAT were they doing checking her underwear in the first place??

Hard to express the disgust any decent person must feel that we have sunk to this level, sold to the American people as 'security'! Anything is now defensible it would appear. No matter how low they go, a section of the population will go there with them.

[suffragette]

182. + 1,000

[struggle4progress]

183. Huh?

[sabrina 1]

186. Okay, 'Operation Depends'?

I admit I'm not very good at coming up with titles for military/security operations.

[SDuderstadt]

184. Her underwear would obviously be under her clothing....

and apparently it was soiled (I'm assuming it was solid or semi-solid) and the TSA simply asked to have the diaper changed, Sabrina.

No one was trying to "check her underwear".

[scarletwoman]

188. Not only did they "check her underwear", they intended to continue "searching" once it got changed.

security personnel then came out and told her they would need for her mother to remove her Depends diaper because it was soiled and was impeding their search.

Searching her underwear.

[sabrina 1]

190. Shhh, those are FACTS! We are not supposed to notice them!

Deflection doesn't work if people like YOU keep bringing up silly facts!

;-)

[SDuderstadt]

196. Bullshit...

How can one complete a patdown if there is a load in her diaper?

Think.

[Bonobo]

199. Idea, why don't you admit that you and most of other members of DU

have very different goals for the kinds of countries they WANT to live in and leave it at that.

People that criticize the TSA are expressing the type of country that they want to live in one where dying, wheelchair-bound 95 year-old people don't have to be subjected to government agents checking their underwear and diapers.

If you are happy to live in a country where such things are a normal matter of course, we will just have to agree to disagree.

But I don't see why you feel the need to try to impose your surprising and disturbing positions on the rest of us...

[glinda]

195. The elderly would most likely remember "scares" like this from Europe. Is this a political tactic?