Cancer Surviving Flight Attendant Forced To Remove Prosthetic Breast During Pat-Down

Another one added to the list, I guess. Very sad.

Do these TSA guys themselves have to go through scanners/are subjected to pat-downs before they work? Just curious.

reply to post by janon


I can only imagine how that would go down too because he would be at fault.

Not those personnel too stupid to realize there is a special way to deal with autism.

I see the airline industry pushing everyone to driving to their destinations from now on.

Originally posted by crazydaisy
I hope this woman and others will sue for all they can get!!

The problem is we the taxpayers would be paying for not only the trial but her compensation. We need to stop suing for money and start trying to force these security measures to stop. Suing for money does not hurt them, it hurts us. The Federal Government will simply divert more of our tax dollars away from other needs to pay for these lawsuits and the compensation awarded.

Originally posted by LadySkadi
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy

 

Are you suggesting that the policy pre-Oct. 2010 (the enhanced pat-downs) were insufficient?

No.

Originally posted by LadySkadi
How were prosthetics handled (yes, pun) then?

THE EXACT SAME AS NOW. In most cases you had to remove them.

The only difference now is that people are sensationalizing this crap for the shock factor propaganda.

People with prosthetics have always had issues with airport scanners and all scanners in general because obviously they set off alarms.

Here is an article from 2002:
www.amputee-coalition.org...

Originally posted by LadySkadi
Were people being compelled to show their breasts?

If they were fake breasts and they were discovered to be fake breasts, they had to explain themselves, and sometimes show them it isn't a bomb disguised as a breast.

Originally posted by LadySkadi
and more importantly, the question that has still failed to be answered: are we safer now, then before?

Obviously, if security is checking more closely than before, they we have greater chances of detecting weapons than before, which in turn means we are that much safe from weapons boarding aircraft. That is obvious common sense.

reply to post by dazbog


Potential terrorist?

Quote from : Wikipedia : Terrorism

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

No universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism currently exists.

Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians), and are committed by non-government agencies.

Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war.

The history of terrorist organizations suggests that they do not select terrorism for its political effectiveness.

Individual terrorists tend to be motivated more by a desire for social solidarity with other members of their organization than by political platforms or strategic objectives, which are often murky and undefined.

The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged, and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of “terrorism”.

The concept of terrorism may itself be controversial as it is often used by state authorities to delegitimize political or other opponents, and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may itself be described as "terror" by opponents of the state).

Terrorism has been practiced by a broad array of political organizations for furthering their objectives.

It has been practiced by both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, and ruling governments.

An abiding characteristic is the indiscriminate use of violence against noncombatants for the purpose of gaining publicity for a group, cause, or individual.

Gee, considering there is no "one definition", and it is left open-ended and vague?

Seems to me that anyone up to and including President Obama could be deemed a terrorist.

One man's terrorist, is another man's freedom-fighter, is another man's political figure.

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy

Originally posted by LadySkadi
and more importantly, the question that has still failed to be answered: are we safer now, then before?

Obviously, if security is checking more closely than before, they we have greater chances of detecting weapons than before, which in turn means we are that much safe from weapons boarding aircraft. That is obvious common sense.

Common sense, 'eh... well, let's see... those who get the enhanced pat-down are either those who refuse to go through the body scanners or those who the body scanners kick out as flagged. Question is then: how effective are the body scanners?

The answer is: It's unknown. The Administration has made that classified information which means we take the DHS and TSA word for it?

Ya, right....

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


Like I said before, now the weapon or bomb will be stuck up someone's read end. How are we really that much safer? You might "feel" more safe but in reality you aren't. Nothing has changed besides stripping people of their dignity and humiliating them publicly.

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

...are you saying we should allow potential terrorists to hide bombs in fake breasts? Fake breasts should not be examined for weapons?

OH MY GAWD not again?!
I swear I wish I had a troll icon.
She's survived cancer,she works as a flight attendant,she's fine, she's been cleared years ago.
Unless after her battle with cancer she had a change of heart and mind and becane a killer terrorist on some way out there freakish chance?
Ya Think? Do you really think that's possible?
Seriously.

Originally posted by janon
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy

 

And they could hide it up their bum. Only a body cavity search would find it. Should we start doing cavity searches on everyone?

No.

That argument is illogical. It's like me saying, "If we can't search everything, should we just have no security at all? Do you think we should have no security at all?"

Obviously they can't check everything without people crying about it. So that will never happen. So they check what they can.

Obviously someone from TSA noticed this lady had fake breasts, and they had to make sure they were not a weapon.

Originally posted by janon
Where should we draw the line?

It's always the same question for your types. "Where should we draw the line?", "Where does it end?", "Whats next?". What on Earth do you expect people to answer with?

Obviously the line is going to keep moving until you people figure out how to stop lunatics from killing people. You live in a world with lunatics, you better get used to living with them, or stop them. Until then, you have to deal with security.

At this rate, the world will never be peaceful. There will always be lunatics because you people keep creating them.

Originally posted by janon
Is there really so many terrorists out there making fake boob bombs to warrant this type of activity from our government?

Have you ever seen these?
gizmodo.com...
People go greater lengths just to sneak beverages into places.

Disguising weapons as body parts has been a major issue for hundreds of years. It doesn't matter how many people do it, it matters that people can do it to get past security.

Originally posted by janon
People are so up in arms about the possibility of someone getting a bomb on a plane yet they never even think about the thousands of real lives that are lost every year due to automobile accidents.

How dare you say "they never even think about it". There is millions of dollars a day being spend to reduce automobile accidents, and thousand of Police officers every single day are enforcing laws and rules on the roads to reduce it. I don't see why you have to lie and ignore obvious truth to make a point.

Originally posted by janon
Lets start putting breathalyzers in every vehicle. That would save more lives than body scanners might.

Yes, good job ignoring the millions of police officers doing their best to protect the streets from drunk drivers, and prevent car accidents by pulling over speeders, and reckless drivers.

Originally posted by LadySkadi
Common sense, 'eh... well, let's see... those who get the enhanced pat-down are either those who refuse to go through the body scanners or those who the body scanners kick out as flagged. Question is then: how effective are the body scanners?

The answer is: It's unknown. The Administration has made that classified information which means we take the DHS and TSA word for it?

Ya, right....

Yes, common sense. What you just asked should be common sense too... Obviously the scanners are more effective than regular metal detectors, or no scanners at all. You don't need someone to spoon feed you that answer.

Originally posted by janon
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy

 

Like I said before, now the weapon or bomb will be stuck up someone's read end. How are we really that much safer? You might "feel" more safe but in reality you aren't. Nothing has changed besides stripping people of their dignity and humiliating them publicly.

Obviously you don't know much about statistics.

You are safer because there is less hiding spots for someone to hide a weapon... That is obvious. Well it should be obvious if you took 6th grade math classes about probability.

If the lunatics are forced to hide their weapon up their rear end, obviously they have reduced their options of weapons, and reduce the chances of them sneaking them in, which reduces the risk of danger.

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

...are you saying we should allow potential terrorists to hide bombs in fake breasts? Fake breasts should not be examined for weapons?

Half of the demographic that this was caused by is being given a pass on scans and pat downs but a flight attendant has to remove her prosthetic breast and kids are being felt up.

It needs to apply to everybody or nobody.

It should definitely apply to anyone with the same type background as previous hijackers but they seem to be the only ones exempted.

This is clearly aimed at something other than preventing hijacking.

Originally posted by HappilyEverAfter
She's survived cancer,she works as a flight attendant,she's fine, she's been cleared years ago.
Unless after her battle with cancer she had a change of heart and mind and becane a killer terrorist on some way out there freakish chance?
Ya Think? Do you really think that's possible?
Seriously.

What you are asking is that the TSA profile people. That is discrimination.

Are you insisting that the TSA not treat everyone equally?

You are asking the TSA to judge people by their looks, and to determine if someone is a threat or not by appearance only. That is absurd. You are suggesting the TSA hold people to a higher standard than others. Get real, nobody is more special than anyone else.

Also, how dare you insult me for having an opposing opinion. Perhaps you should look up the definition of that word you are accusing me of and come to the realization that you are a hypocrite.

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


Oh please. Statistically less places to hide weapons? Obviously you aren't going to hide an AK-47 up there but you can definitely get a box cutter if you were so inclined.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


Well Religion isn't the apparent reason for exempting Muslims, or else they wouldnt be taking nude photos or patting down Nuns either, and they are.

Now, when Morningmayan brings up 9/11 and the suspected race that is supposed to be the so called terrorists according to the official story, she already is informed and you should check out her channel, before you think this is racism! She does more than talk, and takes action for civil liberties and is bringing up real questions about what is going on? I mean they do have an official stance on 9/11 even if it is a LIE!


TSA-Okay to Grope Nuns but Muslims are Exempt?

Originally posted by janon
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy

 

Oh please. Statistically less places to hide weapons?

I didn't say "statistically less places to hide weapons". Thanks for putting words in my mouth. You are statistically in less danger because there is greater chances of them detecting weapons on other parts of their bodies. This is 100% truth, so don't give me the "oh please" nonsense.

Originally posted by janon
Obviously you aren't going to hide an AK-47 up there but you can definitely get a box cutter if you were so inclined.

Box cutters can be detected by metal detectors. Your logic fails.

Here's something I don't understand. If the only way we can be safe from terrorists is to fondle women and children at airports, then why did the government spend trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives fighting wars in the Middle East? I thought that was supposed to keep us safe from terrorists.

Originally posted by VictorVonDoom
why did the government spend trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives fighting wars in the Middle East?

Ummm...Oil? Dang!