TSA asks 95 years old woman, in wheelchair, battling leukemia to remove adult diaper

reply to post by defcon5


Sweet!

As for the article.............I was blinded by the acronym, T.S.A.
I loved you in the Mason thread by the way, when you debated all those apologists, you did a good job.
Anyway back on topic. I still advocate less invasive procedures.

reply to post by defcon5


I will be the first to admit when I am a victim of sensationalism. Looks like I have been had by my own desire for potentially unwarranted justice.
This however doesn't change my over all view of the security procedures and how they perform them.

Let me ask all of you fine folks this;
Would you fly on an airlines that DIDN'T have TSA inspections?

(my answer? yes)

reply to post by beezzer


Yes, in light of all the possible disastrous outcomes that they can not prevent, I certainly would.

Originally posted by Vitchilo

Originally posted by jam321

HOW LONG BEFORE YOU GET ANGRY AMERICA AND BEAT THE HELL OUT OF THESE SCUM?

IMO, if people quit flying, the airliners and their lobbyist would fight to change how TSA treats its customers.

Or you know, when they go bankrupt, the gov will just bailout them or nationalize them... Boycotting won't work.

And then we would still not fly. How would bailing them out help? God I'd love to see video of an empty terminal, TSA agents sitting there staring at walls and then later see them all out on the street.

reply to post by snowen20

I can hardly extrapolate after just one reply but I'll bet that the majority of the folks would risk security over freedom and also say yes.

Funny.

I've never seen a poll asking that question.

Homework time!

What really disappoints me here is that everyone is so quick to jump on the bust on the TSA bandwagon that they did not even bother to get the full facts before they start ragging on them. They just read the sensationalist title and want to think that the TSA asked grandma to drop her drawers in the middle of the airport when that is not really what happened. ATS is a place to find the truth THROUGH the sensationalist claims of the media, not to succumb to them, hence our motto of “Deny Ignorance”.

In this case, it would have been more inhumane to put her on a 2.5 hour flight sitting in her own human excrement, and in most other places, such as health care, allowing someone to sit in their own body fluids for that length of time is actually considered abuse. It was both the humane and correct thing to do to ask the daughter to go change her before continuing with a search, and allowing her onto the flight. Would any of you want to have to pat down someone wearing a leaking bag of human bio-waste? Would you want to sit next to someone in that condition on an aircraft for 2.5 hours?

Originally posted by snowen20
I loved you in the Mason thread by the way, when you debated all those apologists, you did a good job.

That must have been a old thread, but thanks.

US News Poll: 96% believe the TSA is going too far with security measures

bodyscannertruth.com...

Poll taken, Dec 18th 2010

Originally posted by kro32
They use children suicide bombers and they would have no problems getting an old woman to do this knowing she would not be checked.

I'm glad to op is so concerned about a minor delay for an old woman and has 0 concern for the family's and individuals aboard the aircraft.

What nonsense. This invasive pat down and scanner is OBSCENE NWO TACTICS .

It must be removed and those hwo did it charged with fascism and corruption. This is a Police State.

The terrorists are our leaders and tptb, bankers and globalists.

And we're not taking this.

Originally posted by beezzer
Let me ask all of you fine folks this;
Would you fly on an airlines that DIDN'T have TSA inspections?

(my answer? yes)

Yes, I would fly.

The truth is if someone wants to kill people and is willing to die, they can find a way. You can't predict everything. Besides, if they can look at diapers what about tampons or pads - are they next?

I have taken over 20 flights with an elderly relative who has an ostomy (if anyone doesn't know what that is, your colon is out by your belly button and a bag is attached.) Due to another medical condition, she always would beep when going through the metal detector. Never once did she have to remove the bag or even hassled about it. So I'm wondering if these invasive screenings are just a way to scare people into going through the full body scan.

reply to post by defcon5


What really bothers me about this thread is the OP essentially asking to have TSA agents lynched. I thought that would certainly go against the rules here along with implying another member is a 'pussy' and stating that he wished he could ban him from all threads.

These temper tantrums should not be allowed on this site, even if someone else is disagreeing with you and everyone else thinks they're wrong too.

reply to post by defcon5


Forgive me, oh mighty mod, but I disagree with your premise. While this specific case may have extenuating circumstances, the premise still remains solid. TSA is becomming invasive. Their actions have consistantly been of the sort that disallows the freedoms that we are used to enjoying.
Rather than pull out the same tired old quotes about freedoms and security, I'll instead, try to point out that TSA isn't about airline security but of justifying their numbers to include areas outside of airports.
Threads here have pointed out that TSA has plans for growth.
That they block out private airport screeners.
They are now unionized
www.nytimes.com...
This has become more about the growth of a security arm of government and less about the actual safety of people flying.

My opinion only.

reply to post by beezzer


I believe that the topic of the thread is:
"TSA asks 95 years old woman, in wheelchair, battling leukemia to remove adult diaper"

Not:
"The collected evils of the TSA..."

Originally posted by jam321

HOW LONG BEFORE YOU GET ANGRY AMERICA AND BEAT THE HELL OUT OF THESE SCUM?

My question is, if this is such a big issue and concern, then why do people keep flying knowing that there is a possibility that something like this might happen?

IMO, if people quit flying, the airliners and their lobbyist would fight to change how TSA treats its customers.

They keep flying becouse they are hoping it will happen to SOMEONE ELSE!!!!!

as is the American way of doing things, they wait for someone else to say or do something, they wait untill its tooooooooooo late becouse they were waiting for someone else to do something!!!!

If you (americans) have been told once you have been told a million times,

"In Germany, the Nazis came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak for me."

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by beezzer

 

I believe that the topic of the thread is:
"TSA asks 95 years old woman, in wheelchair, battling leukemia to remove adult diaper"

Not:
"The collected evils of the TSA..."

Your honor, the true intent of TSA is relavent to this case. By showing the intent of TSA, it illustrates their need to justify the invasive nature of their actions.

If Americans are already tolerating it up to now...You shouldn't be surprised that they're willing to tolerate a lot more. Incidents like this will not the first and will not be the last.
Many Americans remain unfamiliar with their constitutional rights and therefore they will not take action as they see this the appropriate measure to counter-act possible terrorist acts.
Of course, they may also not know that they're hundreds of times more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than a terrorist on a plane. And we've yet to see alcohol banned or have homeland security extend their 'services' into bars and liquor stores.
Sure...some will say that this isn't a violation of the constitution because the airliners are a private industry, but it is because the airliners are forced to abide by TSA provisions and regulation in order to function within the law and remain in business. It's not an option post 9/11...

reply to post by beezzer



How so?
They did not ask her to remove the diaper in the search area, they asked the daughter to take her into the bathroom and change her.

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by beezzer

 

How so?
They did not ask her to remove the diaper in the search area, they asked the daughter to take her into the bathroom and change her.

Is it within their scope to be the scent police? What security issue would allow them to determine the filth of a diaper? What safety issue did the folks violate that would involve TSA?

If I traveled and had bad beathe, offensive body odour, or just an aftershave they didn't like, would that fall under airline safety and security?

Found this interesting

The U.S. Travel Association strongly supports TSA’s efforts to implement a risk-based trusted traveler program where travelers can opt in and voluntarily provide background information to qualify for expedited screening, similar to trusted traveler programs operated by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

The need for reform was made especially clear by recent research revealing that travelers are avoiding two to three trips per year due to unnecessary hassles associated with the security screening process. These avoided trips come at a cost of $85 billion and 900,000 jobs to the American economy.

avstop.com...