Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Stay classy America

Jun 26, 2011#1

@Li3n

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

Elderly woman asked to remove adult diaper during TSA search

June 25, 2011 11:09 AM

Lauren Sage Reinlie
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.”
Sari Koshetz, a spokeswoman for the Transportation Security Administration in Miami, said she could not comment on specific cases to protect the privacy of those involved.
“The TSA works with passengers to resolve any security alarms in a respectful and sensitive manner,” she said.
Weber’s mother entered the airport’s security checkpoint in a wheelchair because she was not stable enough to walk through, Weber said.
Wheelchairs trigger certain protocols, including pat-downs and possible swabbing for explosives, Koshetz said.
“During any part of the process, if there is an alarm, then we have to resolve that alarm,” she said.
Weber said she did not know whether her mother had triggered an alarm during the 45 minutes they were detained.
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.
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.
Weber said she wished there were less invasive search methods for an elderly person who is unable to walk through security gates.
“I don’t understand why they have to put them through that kind of procedure,” she said.
Koshetz said the procedures are the same for everyone to ensure national security.
“TSA cannot exempt any group from screening because we know from intelligence that there are terrorists out there that would then exploit that vulnerability,” she said.
Weber filed a complaint through Northwest Florida Regional’s website. She said she received a response from a Homeland Security representative at the airport on Tuesday and spoke to that person on the phone Wednesday.
The representative told her that personnel had followed procedures during the search, Weber said.
“Then I thought, if you’re just following rules and regulations, then the rules and regulations need to be changed,” she said.
Weber said she plans to file additional complaints next week.
“I’m not one to make waves, but dadgummit, this is wrong. People need to know. Next time it could be you.”

Jun 26, 2011#2

ThatGrinningIdiot!

Title should be "Stay classy TSA" not America.

Jun 26, 2011#3

sixpackshaker

Old, but one of my faves. Language NSFW.

Jun 26, 2011#4

PatrThom

Diarrhea and/or baby poop will set off the explosive detectors due to similarity of chemical triggers (poop = fertilizer = nitrates = explosives). Still, a certain amount of intelligent assessment was probably in order.

--Patrick

Jun 27, 2011#5

ThatGrinningIdiot!

mr_thehun said:
TSA, the greeting and departure ambassadors of the USA. For many they are the first and last part of the US that they see.

His title is inaccurate as I don't see the hands of millions of people forcing that old woman to remove her diaper. It was a bad judgement call and reprehensible act from a security guard working for a ineffective security company. Granted, it's a government reponsibility to regulate their employess, I don't see the need to throw blame around or exaggerate it when it's clear that it should be placed at the solely at the feet of the TSA.

Jun 27, 2011#6

DarkAudit

What it represents is a bunch of rejected Walmart applicant and baby momma bullies that I wouldn't trust to clean the airport toilets.

Not a week goes by where you don't see another story about how they've humiliated and demeaned yet another law-abiding passenger while the dangerous stuff goes right on past without a second glance. Until the examiners point out how the screeners fucked up yet again.

Jun 27, 2011#7

ThatGrinningIdiot!

mr_thehun said:
I don't really care about the title of the thread but.

The TSA is a government organization it is tasked by the elected government of the USA to carry out the policies of the USA.

Sorry but in many ways, it represents your country.

Actually Canada is my country. Sorry if I gave the impression that I'm American citizen - technically I am, but I don't reside in the U.S.A.

I agree that the TSA is creating bad publicity for America, but it's a minority of the government and people as a whole. It's irrational to color all of America by the actions of a ineffective, and incompetent organization.

Jun 27, 2011#8

Dave

The biggest problem is that even though I'd be willing to bet a majority of Americans disagree with the TSA tactics, it would be extremely difficult to stop them now as they are a government entity and these have a way of becoming like a snowball running down a mountain. The TSA is being used as a tool to keep people afraid and to keep businesses in power. As a citizen, I don't have a lobbyist. I really should because that's what my elected officials are suppose to be, but they have been bought by special interests and big business.

And this has been Dave's Cynical Monday statement.

Jun 27, 2011#9

Chibibar

That is sad. This is another article that shows that TSA is NOT doing their job properly (imo). It is common sense just to swab for explosive if they are "that worry" about it, but force a person battling leukemia to take off the diaper and pat down?

Jun 27, 2011#10

Dave

Apparently, the lady had wet herself. The diapers did what they were supposed to and turned it into a sort of gel. The gel showed up on the scanner as an anomaly. Hence the search.

So while I agree that this was over the top, at least they had a good reason for the search.

Jun 27, 2011#11

strawman

Adequately preparing for an airline trip should now include checking out the TSA website and making sure you understand what is going to happen. If they did that, they would understand that wheelchair users undergo enhanced screening that includes a patdown, and that if any clothing gets in the way of the patdown, it will have to be removed.

I understand people are upset about this, but unfortunately terrorists aren't above putting explosives or ceramic knives in a "full" adult diaper, or in the tubing of the wheelchair. Quite frankly I'm surprised we haven't seen someone surgically install explosives inside their abdomen, wait a month for everything to heal and traces of explosive to be washed away, and then blow up a plane that way.

We either accept these very invasive procedures, or we pull back on how much we check for things, and live with a hijacking every year or so.

Unfortunately for the ill and infirm, and for those with other special travel needs, 99% of the people who go through the checkpoints aren't bothered at all, and so they are willing to make others suffer so they can increase their personal level of security by an extra percent or two. Not a big increase, but since it comes at little personal cost they will deal with it, even if it means a great deal of discomfort for a minority of other passengers.

I don't know what the answer is, though. Traveling via train or bus sounds preferable for trips under 300 miles these days. We'll be traveling to California with a baby in September so I guess I'll find out how problematic it is at that point, but we won't need to deal with formula, and we'll certainly be checking out the TSA, airline, and airport websites prior to leaving to make sure our bases are covered.

We have traveled with a baby since 9/11 and it wasn't a problem then - that was 2006 or 2007 I believe. We sailed right through screening because we knew exactly what to expect and prepared for it.

Now I know that if I become wheelchair bound and incontinent and have to travel via plane, I will have to pack extra diapers, and change into underwear prior to the checkpoint, hope I can hold it during the checkpoint, deal with the patdown, and change back into diapers after the checkpoint. Like a baby, I'd carry an extra change of clothing just in case, and consider putting down a waterproof pad on the wheelchair.

Yeah, it's uncomfortable and humiliating even if you do know what to expect. But people that go to the airport without checking first and assuming that it's all going to be puppies and roses are going to be utterly shocked.

Charter a small private plane out of a small-town airport if you can't stand dealing with the TSA. Use a train. Rent a limo. Ride the bus. There are other options - but they all have tradeoffs.

Jun 27, 2011#12

Chad Sexington

stienman said:
unfortunately terrorists aren't above putting explosives or ceramic knives in a "full" adult diaper, or in the tubing of the wheelchair. Quite frankly I'm surprised we haven't seen someone surgically install explosives inside their abdomen, wait a month for everything to heal and traces of explosive to be washed away, and then blow up a plane that way.

People keep saying things like this, but we've seen, what?

I'm pretty sure they peaked with 9/11. Because from there they've upgraded to: shoes and underpants. And also at least one of those wasn't caught by security, even though his own father had warned the US that he was likely a terrorist.

I dislike this whole attitude of "Well they could subdermally implant C4 turning their entire body INTO A BOMB!" They're not Bond villains, ffs.

I'm not saying all security is unreasonable, but I am saying holy shit this was unreasonable.

Jun 27, 2011#13

strawman

I have ants in my house. They have lairs outside, but come inside for the yummy food we leave lying about, despite our cleaning skills.

I've gone through and closed off all the holes that are practical and obvious.

I've gone through an closed off the holes that are not obvious, which I discovered by following them walk around.

I've added new seals to openings I have to keep available for my own use.

There are still places that I cannot seal simply because it's impractical for me to do so.

Guess where the ants now come through? Despite the added work they have to exert to exploit these holes, they go ahead and use them because it's all I've left for them.

This is similar to what we're seeing with the TSA.

We closed off the obvious holes. We closed off holes we found through use (shoes). We close off the holes which we suspect might be used (wheelchairs, diapers).

If we leave some of the holes open due to practicality - let's say people with adult diapers do not require no-diaper pat downs or xray searches - then guess where we're going to see the next big security breach?

It's a balance, though, and you obviously fall on the side of "This is too unreasonable for the risk it poses" side. I'm not sure that I disagree with you, but I don't think I agree with you either.

The funny thing is that the TSA can't win. They tighten down searches, and they get bad press. They loosen up searches, something slips through, and they get bad press.

Jun 27, 2011#14

@Li3n

The ants are coming from your grandma's underoos?

Jun 27, 2011#15

Chibibar

stienman - I like the ant analogy, but you have to remember something. No matter what you do, if a group of people are determine enough (in this case ants) they WILL penetrate your defenses regardless with exception of totally bubble yourself (i.e. bubble your home with a single point of entry or something sci-fi ish)

Now. I remember when we talk about TSA in the U.S. vs anyone else in the world, there are better method of doing things. If you train your people and observe with better equipment (like England got a new scanner than is less invasive and less radioactive and CHEAPER than TSA stuff, but the U.S. shot that one down) then you can monitor who is coming and going.

like that ants - open a pathway and monitor it. If you see ants come in, then kill it with fire!

Jun 27, 2011#16

strawman

@Li3n said:
The ants are coming from your grandma's underoos?

GET OUT OF THERE! THE ANTS ARE CALLING FROM INSIDE YOUR DIAPERS!

Jun 27, 2011#17

DarkAudit

As long as the TSA is going to treat infants, toddlers, and the infirm elderly as terror suspects first and fellow citizens a distant 163rd, they can smurf the smurfing smurf off.

They are the wrong people using the wrong tools and the wrong methods for the job.

Jun 27, 2011#18

strawman

DarkAudit said:
They are the wrong people using the wrong tools and the wrong methods for the job.

It sounds like you've given a lot of thought to the problem. What is your plan?

Jun 27, 2011#19

DarkAudit

stienman said:
It sounds like you've given a lot of thought to the problem. What is your plan?

Hire El Al to set up the screening procedures, and keep a few of their people on as advisors with hire and fire power to fix things when we inevitably fuck it all up.

Jun 27, 2011#20

GasBandit

The TSA, despite draconian, invasive policies carried out with a completely robotic lack of empathy, has yet to catch a single terrorist. The rank and file Americans also hate the TSA.

DarkAudit said:
As long as the TSA is going to treat infants, toddlers, and the infirm elderly as terror suspects first and fellow citizens a distant 163rd, they can smurf the smurfing smurf off.

They are the wrong people using the wrong tools and the wrong methods for the job.

I agree.

But if they don't, they get accused of profiling. So we still continue to de-pampers great grandma and confiscate congressional medals of honor (cause they're sharp metallic objects) because otherwise it won't be politically correct to stop/search/detain anyone at all.

What needs to happen, is we need to get people in charge who aren't afraid to say, "yes, we profile. It's not all we do, but it's part of what we do, because to do otherwise is insane."

Jun 27, 2011#21

strawman

DarkAudit said:
Hire El Al to set up the screening procedures, and keep a few of their people on as advisors with hire and fire power to fix things when we inevitably fuck it all up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al#Security

3 hours prior to flight? Interviewing each passenger? Do they process as many passengers as the big US airports, and pay their people as little as they do here?

Seems like it's more time consuming, expensive, and just as invasive - but not physically invasive.

If you refuse to answer about the reason of your flight, do they let you fly anyway?

Jun 27, 2011#22

DarkAudit

stienman said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al#Security

3 hours prior to flight? Interviewing each passenger? Do they process as many passengers as the big US airports, and pay their people as little as they do here?

Seems like it's more time consuming, expensive, and just as invasive - but not physically invasive.

If you refuse to answer about the reason of your flight, do they let you fly anyway?

Every time it comes down to cost with you. You want to plug every hole, but you don't want to pay for it.

You want foolproof? FINE. You want nuts? C'mon, let's get NUTS!

No luggage. No carryons. No shoes or underwear. Passengers will strip naked in individual cubicles and be strapped into their seats, then sedated. Once all passengers for a flight are thus prepared, the seats will be collected into a single unit that will be loaded onto the plane. Passengers will only be revived once they reach their assigned destination and not one moment before. Appropriate garments will be provided upon awakening. For a reasonable (large) fee, a pre-packed wardrobe will be available upon request.

The only people remaining conscious during flight will be the flight crew and a skeleton staff responsible for keeping passengers in stasis. In the event of an emergency, oh well. Such is the cost of keeping even the remotest of terror attempts out of the skies. Sacrifices must be made in this time of war.

Jun 27, 2011#23

strawman

DarkAudit said:
Every time it comes down to cost with you.

In a capitalist economy, not necessarily me. I don't fly enough to care.

DarkAudit said:
You want to plug every hole, but you don't want to pay for it.

Generalized for the american public, sure. 9/11 scared people.

How exactly do you go about reconciling this?

DarkAudit said:
You want foolproof? FINE. You want nuts? C'mon, let's get NUTS!

No luggage. No carryons. No shoes or underwear. Passengers will strip naked in individual cubicles and be strapped into their seats, then sedated. Once all passengers for a flight are thus prepared, the seats will be collected into a single unit that will be loaded onto the plane. Passengers will only be revived once they reach their assigned destination and not one moment before. Appropriate garments will be provided upon awakening. For a reasonable (large) fee, a pre-packed wardrobe will be available upon request.

The only people remaining conscious during flight will be the flight crew and a skeleton staff responsible for keeping passengers in stasis. In the event of an emergency, oh well. Such is the cost of keeping even the remotest of terror attempts out of the skies. Sacrifices must be made in this time of war.

I'm guessing that's not going to work either.

Sadly, I don't think your plans are good enough to be implemented.

I don't have any better ideas, though.

The main problem is that the majority of people that fly are not inconvenienced by the existing procedures, it doesn't take hours to get through security, and it doesn't raise the cost of the flights by $100 per passenger.

Your plans add inconvenience, time, and cost, without increasing security for the majority - while making it so the minority are not more inconvenienced than the majority.

So, I guess your plans are good for those with an overriding sense of fairness, but unfortunately capitalism doesn't favor fairness.

Jun 27, 2011#24

DarkAudit

The skies are too crowded already. If the cost of security were tacked on to the cost of a ticket, the terrorists too cheap to fly lose an avenue of attack.

If it prices others out of the market, so be it. Once again, sacrifices have to be made in a time of war. (

Fewer passengers mean fewer flights, meaning less crowded skies and airports. Not to mention the savings in unneeded fuel, and less stress on overtaxed employees.

A win/win as I see it.

Jun 28, 2011#25

North_Ranger

DarkAudit said:
Once again, sacrifices have to be made in a time of war.

Jun 28, 2011#26

DarkAudit

North_Ranger said:

Don't tell me. Tell the politicians who have shoved that phrase down our collective throats the past ten years.

When Steve Jobs stands in front of the WWDC and proclaims the next iPad is canceled in favor of ordinance production, then I'll believe we're at war.

Jun 28, 2011#27

@Li3n

DarkAudit said:
When Steve Jobs stands in front of the WWDC and proclaims the next iPad is canceled in favor of ordinance production, then I'll believe we're at war.

Apple has enough weapons to win the war before they ever run out of ammo... no matter how much the US throws at them...

Jun 28, 2011#28

strawman

DarkAudit said:
When Steve Jobs stands in front of the WWDC and proclaims the next iPad is canceled in favor of ordinance production

What makes you think the iPad isn't ordinance?

I wonder why so many people think today's most effective wars are still fought with bullets. We may not officially declare a war, but we are certainly actively engaging in multiple, large scale, ongoing economic and information wars right now.

Jun 28, 2011#29

Chibibar

stienman said:
What makes you think the iPad isn't ordinance?

I wonder why so many people think today's most effective wars are still fought with bullets. We may not officially declare a war, but we are certainly actively engaging in multiple, large scale, ongoing economic and information wars right now.

Shhh..... That is what the Chinese are doing right now.

Jun 28, 2011#30

Dave

You have no idea.

The Navy Bought Fake Chinese Microchips That Could Have Disarmed U.S. Missiles.

Jun 28, 2011#31

@Li3n

stienman said:
We may not officially declare a war, but we are certainly actively engaging in multiple, large scale, ongoing economic and information wars right now.

But that's not war, that's competition...

Jun 28, 2011#32

Frankie Williamson

Dave said:
You have no idea.

The Navy Bought Fake Chinese Microchips That Could Have Disarmed U.S. Missiles.

Wow, that's pretty disastrous.

Jun 28, 2011#33

Chibibar

Dave said:
You have no idea.

The Navy Bought Fake Chinese Microchips That Could Have Disarmed U.S. Missiles.

I am not surprise. That is what you get when you don't make your own stuff.

Jun 28, 2011#34

sixpackshaker

Geez about the chips. I read yesterday that Home Depot could face fines for basically selling powertools to the government because they were foreign made.

http://my.placerherald.com/detail/182035.html

Jun 28, 2011#35

DarkAudit

"Keep Calm and Go Shopping" isn't a nation at war.

This is a nation at war:

Jun 28, 2011#36

sixpackshaker

WWII comparison to today is not fair. We had the smallest military in the Industrialized World at the start of the war. Then we maintained a force that could fight a World War for the last 60 years. We could probably handle 6 Afghanistan conflicts with out affecting the home front. We are situated to fight 2 Desert Storm sized conflicts at one time.

If we did enter into a Full Scale War, it would take us years to burn through our current manufacturing capacity. Then you have to figure that we import nearly all of our consumer goods, that will take either a very long time to interrupt or hurt us fast if we go to war with China and Japan.

Jun 28, 2011#37

DarkAudit

sixpackshaker said:
WWII comparison to today is not fair. We had the smallest military in the Industrialized World at the start of the war. Then we maintained a force that could fight a World War for the last 60 years. We could probably handle 6 Afghanistan conflicts with out affecting the home front. We are situated to fight 2 Desert Storm sized conflicts at one time.

If we did enter into a Full Scale War, it would take us years to burn through our current manufacturing capacity. Then you have to figure that we import nearly all of our consumer goods, that will take either a very long time to interrupt or hurt us fast if we go to war with China and Japan.

A nation at war that is not asked to give up creature comforts or consumer goods is not at war. In spite of all the breathless rhetoric from the politicians, we as a nation have not been asked to sacrifice anything except our privacy and our dignity.

A WWII comparison is entirely fair, because the home front was asked to do it's part for the common good. Unless you have served or know someone who has, the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are a reality show happening to someone else.

Jun 28, 2011#38

strawman

sixpackshaker said:
our current manufacturing capacity.

What is the US manufacturing capacity, compared to China, Japan, Korea, Philippines, etc?

Jun 28, 2011#39

sixpackshaker

stienman said:
What is the US manufacturing capacity, compared to China, Japan, Korea, Philippines, etc?

We still rate as larger than those nations. China is getting close. You have to remember the main thing that we still produce is Military Arms by the Trainload.
Added at: 02:03

DarkAudit said:
A nation at war that is not asked to give up creature comforts or consumer goods is not at war. In spite of all the breathless rhetoric from the politicians, we as a nation have not been asked to sacrifice anything except our privacy and our dignity.

A WWII comparison is entirely fair, because the home front was asked to do it's part for the common good. Unless you have served or know someone who has, the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are a reality show happening to someone else.

We HAD to do our part because we had no Army, Navy or Aircorps to handle the war. We HAD to stop producing what Little Goods we were producing to turn to armaments. Remember we were technically still in the Great Depression in 1941. We were pretty used to doing with out.

If we started a war with China tomorrow, we would have a vast superiority in Technology and Amount of Weapons Systems. Keeping things conventional we would whip down their Air Force and Navy in a few Months. The problem comes when we set foot on their soil. Their Standing Army is nearly as large as ours, and their reserves would just wash over our troops with bodies.

There will be no reason for us to shut down what domestic consumer goods production that we currently have.

Now just imagine our riches if we were not currently producing military goods at a world war footing. In reality since the 70's on, we have been doing without to support our behemoth of a military/industrial complex.

Jun 28, 2011#40

drifter

Dave said:
You have no idea.

The Navy Bought Fake Chinese Microchips That Could Have Disarmed U.S. Missiles.

That article is pretty much entirely wrong. Those Navy chips were counterfeit, but that's it. The original article follows with a worst-case speculation that instead of counterfeits, someday we might end up with hacked chips; the article then details what steps the military might take in trying to ensure that doesn't happen. Those chips weren't hardwired with backdoors and they never could have remotely shut down missiles. Poor showing by Business Insider.

Also, it's ordnance.

Jun 29, 2011#41

@Li3n

People will cut corners to get more profit when they can get away with it no matter the country...

Jun 29, 2011#42

@Li3n

mr_thehun said:
and some people refuse to cut corners no matter the country.

Yes, we call them bankrupt or bought out.

Jun 29, 2011#43

GasBandit

DarkAudit said:
A nation at war that is not asked to give up creature comforts or consumer goods is not at war. In spite of all the breathless rhetoric from the politicians, we as a nation have not been asked to sacrifice anything except our privacy and our dignity.

A WWII comparison is entirely fair, because the home front was asked to do it's part for the common good. Unless you have served or know someone who has, the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are a reality show happening to someone else.

As an unknown marine once scrawled on a whiteboard in Iraq -

Jun 29, 2011#44

sixpackshaker

WOW, that poor Marine has been overseas for a long time...

No one goes to the Mall anymore.

Jun 29, 2011#45

Mathias

GasBandit said:
As an unknown marine once scrawled on a whiteboard in Iraq -

My cousin did a 3 round grand tour in Iraq, and he told me this was pretty much the mindset drilled into all the Marines. They all refer to themselves as the Forgotten Generation as a play on the Greatest Generation.
Added at: 20:29
I find myself becoming less and less nationalistic as I get older, personally. I don't foresee humanity making it past 200 years from now unless we absolve all borders sometime in the future. There's so much huff and puff about being an 'Merican ever since 9/11, people don't stop a wonder just what they're so patriotic about. Really, the only major difference between you and some dude in Afghanistan is the land where you happened to be born.

This dude I work with is a Vietnam era ex Coast Guard diver. He's always ranting and raving about how my generation (gen Xer's and Y's) are so terrible, and that we have no appreciation for the sacrifices of the military. Buddy, I get it, but it's not like someone's holding a gun to service members head's to sign up either. I don't tell him that because heaven forbid you make any sort of pacifist claims around people like that.

Forums