Outrageous!

[Kobi]

I am still waiting for the day when someone tries to smuggle a device or pieces thereof by shoving it up their butt.

Then all air passengers will be expected to undergo free rectals and pelvic exams!

Its a sad day when the elderly have to remove diapers and kids get to be molested by the government. Whats next...searching colostomy and urostomy bags? Maybe having to pull out your tampon? How about your IUD?

These searches do not make me feel safer. They make me feel like a prisoner in my own country.

[Novelafemme]

I flew home to Buffalo in late October of 2001 with my oldest daughter who was 3&1/2 and a newborn who was 3 months. I still remember security making me strip down Sophia so they could check her diaper and disassemble her car seat. It was freezing cold in the airport and they wouldn't let me cover her with a blanket. I had an antiquated double breast pump since she couldn't nurse properly due to being severely tongue-tied and security threatened to take it from me. They didn't believe it truly was what I said it was. My experience pales in comparison to what this woman and her daughter went through. Shudder!!

[Andrea]

If TSA had stopped one terrorist I might consider what they do as a safety precaution, but even TSA has admitted they would not have caught the shoe bomber or the underwear bomber using today's enhanced screenings. In both cases it was the passengers on the plane that stopped them.

Since 9/11 (the oft quoted reason we need TSA) planes have been outfitted with impenetrable doors to the pilots. That is the best security move possible.

If you don't already know the stories about the recent 'strip searches' where people have been told to remove their outer clothing to resolve issues, or the stories about silly items being 'voluntarily surrendered' (search plastic hammer), or the inconsiderate ways those in wheelchairs or other medical issues have been treated, please educate yourselves.

Our constitutional rights are being eroded by Homeland Security, TSA, the Patriot Act, etc. To treat everyone as guilty until proven innocent goes against our constitutional rights.

Andrea

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by always2late

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/news/mot...rch-adult.html

Has anyone else seen this story? A 95 year old woman with leukemia traveling with her daughter is forced to remove her Depends undergarment to be searched. I am so outraged I can barely write coherent sentences.

Honestly, from the article it sounds like the TSA did as much as they could to preserve this woman's privacy. They didn't do this in public. They took her to a private room.

Yes, it's terrible that this woman had to endure this. However, I would not put it past a terrorist to "use" a senior in a wheelchair to further their aims. They use children...why not the sick and elderly.

Her daughter is offended that she was treated this way....and I understand. However, this same daughter didn't bother to ensure that her mother had a clean Depends, and a spare, while traveling. Somehow, I'm almost more offended by that lack of care and concern on the part of people who supposedly love her than I am by the TSA following security protocols.

Originally Posted by Kobi

I am still waiting for the day when someone tries to smuggle a device or pieces thereof by shoving it up their butt.

Then all air passengers will be expected to undergo free rectals and pelvic exams!

Its a sad day when the elderly have to remove diapers and kids get to be molested by the government. Whats next...searching colostomy and urostomy bags? Maybe having to pull out your tampon? How about your IUD?

These searches do not make me feel safer. They make me feel like a prisoner in my own country.

Honestly Kobi? My mother has a colostomy bag. She has been pat-searched and asked what it was. It was very gently handled to ensure that it was, in fact, a colostomy bag. Period.

Tampons and IUDs wouldn't set off security alarms...so I sincerely doubt that would ever become an issue.

And I'm guessing that anyone who jammed an explosive or something metal up their ass would be subjected to the backscatter if the preliminary search didn't identify the problem.

I think that this kind of inflammatory rhetoric fans the flames....and doesn't help.

If we honestly believe that we want the TSA to search less thoroughly, and accept the corresponding decrease in air travel safety, then it's up to us to do that through our legislators - not to hassle individual TSA agents who don't write the regulations, or get people stirred up about (non-existent) cavity searches.

Originally Posted by Andrea

If TSA had stopped one terrorist I might consider what they do as a safety precaution, but even TSA has admitted they would not have caught the shoe bomber or the underwear bomber using today's enhanced screenings. In both cases it was the passengers on the plane that stopped them.

Since 9/11 (the oft quoted reason we need TSA) planes have been outfitted with impenetrable doors to the pilots. That is the best security move possible.

If you don't already know the stories about the recent 'strip searches' where people have been told to remove their outer clothing to resolve issues, or the stories about silly items being 'voluntarily surrendered' (search plastic hammer), or the inconsiderate ways those in wheelchairs or other medical issues have been treated, please educate yourselves.

Our constitutional rights are being eroded by Homeland Security, TSA, the Patriot Act, etc. To treat everyone as guilty until proven innocent goes against our constitutional rights.

Andrea

Respectfully, we do not have a constitutional right to fly.

You have a constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure, covered by the 4th Amendment.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Generally, that's defined as a search without cause (setting off the metal detector at the airport is cause, being the random "lucky number" based on TSA regulations is cause, being in a wheelchair through security, unfortunately, is cause).....or searches beyond the body's surface.

If the TSA starts drawing blood, then they've violated the 4th Amendment.

More on the 4th Amendment here.

My first and foremost concern when flying is that I'd like to arrive at my destination safely.

I don't like being searched (although I seem to get the "lucky random number" search often...and have been patted down a lot until I learned not to fly in voluminous skirts), but I prefer it to being blown up in the sky.

I had my possessions swabbed on the way to the Bahamas last week, and my 13 year old son got pat-searched on the way back. In both cases, the TSA (in the US) and the security personnel in the Bahamas (with my son) were polite, professional and simply doing their jobs.

[Novelafemme]

"If we honestly believe that we want the TSA to search less thoroughly, and accept the corresponding decrease in air travel safety, then it's up to us to do that through our legislators - not to hassle individual TSA agents who don't write the regulations, or get people stirred up about (non-existent) cavity searches."

Given media coverage surrounding other events involving the TSA recently, I believe the public (myself included) could be feeling a bit abused and manhandled - therefor heightening emotions involving personal privacy and space issues. While I completely understand the need for safety protocol and procedures in public transportation facilities, something about both the narrative and subsequent handling of this situation leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Again, this story comes on the heels of another situation involving an African American male who was removed from a plane due to his style of clothing, while another passenger (a white male) was allowed to travel wearing little more than a pair of black heels and a speedo. Most will say these two incidents vs the OP's story are like comparing apples and oranges, but the fact is that people are feeling sensitive and protective...especially when it comes to our elderly and children who are relatively helpless in these situations.

Personally, I would have been absolutely mortified had that been my mother. And speaking AS a mother - I have absolutely forgotten to pack extra diapers when traveling. I'm human after all!

[Andrea]

Originally Posted by JustJo

Respectfully, we do not have a constitutional right to fly.

I believe we do have a constitutional right to fly:

"The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all."

As to the daughter not having a spare Depends.... It is against TSA policy to allow one to access your personal items until all issues are resolved. So there may have been a spare Depends but not accessible.

In addition, per the Depends website:

Q: How often should I change my DEPEND® Brand product?

A: That depends on you and the extent of your condition. However, DEPEND® Brand products use more super absorbent polymers (SAP) to ensure they can withstand multiple wettings of varying amounts. This means you don't have to change them as often as less-expensive, non-premium brands.

Since it was not a long flight, it is quite possible there was no thought that an additional Depends was needed.

Andrea

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by Andrea

I believe we do have a constitutional right to fly:

"The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all."

Andrea

Thanks for this Andrea. I wonder if it's as specific to assert that we have a right to a certain form of travel though. If someone doesn't want to subject themselves to airport security, there is also the train, bus, car, etc.

Not trying to be difficult, but it is a personal choice.

I choose not to travel by bus because it's slow and makes me feel sick. I prefer to fly, even with the security measures. It's my choice.

And you may be right about the Depends issue....although the article said that she did not have a spare. It may be as Novelafemme pointed out, and have been forgotten. It still bothers me.

[Andrea]

Originally Posted by JustJo

Thanks for this Andrea. I wonder if it's as specific to assert that we have a right to a certain form of travel though. If someone doesn't want to subject themselves to airport security, there is also the train, bus, car, etc.

Not trying to be difficult, but it is a personal choice.

I choose not to travel by bus because it's slow and makes me feel sick. I prefer to fly, even with the security measures. It's my choice.

And you may be right about the Depends issue....although the article said that she did not have a spare. It may be as Novelafemme pointed out, and have been forgotten. It still bothers me.

TSA has begun searches at train stations (Amtrak officials are pushing back), bus stations and subways. I believe the program is called VIPR.

There are people who must travel for work and can not avoid flying. In this economy, it isn't reasonable to tell someone to find another job if they don't like being patted down almost every time they go through airport security because they have a metal pin in their leg or a colostomy bag or they just will not subject themselves to the scanner that may or may not produce cancer causing radiation.

It is now being reported that there were spare Depends in the checked luggage. Please note, the 95 year old woman was not without her mental capabilities so it was not her daughter's decision whether or not her mom should have a spare Depends. The 95 year old woman was a seasoned nurse and quite capable of deciding for herself what her needs were. Perhaps the daughter suggested a spare Depends and mom made the decision not to carry one. And the truth is, if the TSA had not required the Depends be removed, it is quite possible a spare one would not have been needed.

Andrea

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by Andrea

TSA has begun searches at train stations (Amtrak officials are pushing back), bus stations and subways. I believe the program is called VIPR.

There are people who must travel for work and can not avoid flying. In this economy, it isn't reasonable to tell someone to find another job if they don't like being patted down almost every time they go through airport security because they have a metal pin in their leg or a colostomy bag or they just will not subject themselves to the scanner that may or may not produce cancer causing radiation.

Andrea

Thanks Andrea, I had not heard about this program. Here's a link and, yes, I do find this disturbing, especially the part that is extending their examinations to immigration status.

I believe that the TSA's searches need to be completely restricted to concerns regarding physical safety....and it's one of my biggest criticisms of the Israeli-style screenings. I have more issues personally with people questioning me about where I'm coming from, where I'm going, where I went to school, my nationality, etc. than I do about a pat search for weapons.

[Dominique]

I'm not sure who you are talking to Andrea, if it is me, (since you quoted me) I will respectfully bow out of this conversation.

I can not continue as I stated very early in the thread. However, you have done a good job with providing links and info. It was you who mentioned VIPR. Maybe you'd like to expound. I'm out of this.

[Andrea]

Originally Posted by Yellow band

I'm not sure who you are talking to Andrea, if it is me, (since you quoted me) I will respectfully bow out of this conversation.

I can not continue as I stated very early in the thread. However, you have done a good job with providing links and info. It was you who mentioned VIPR. Maybe you'd like to expound. I'm out of this.

I am sorry if I put you in an uncomfortable position. It was not my intention. When you said there were things you couldn't speak of, I understood you to mean the real security and not the purpose of TSA. I am guessing speaking of one does not preclude the other.

Please accept my apology and thank you for your participation to the point you were able to participate.

Andrea

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by JustJo

Honestly Kobi? My mother has a colostomy bag. She has been pat-searched and asked what it was. It was very gently handled to ensure that it was, in fact, a colostomy bag. Period.

Tampons and IUDs wouldn't set off security alarms...so I sincerely doubt that would ever become an issue.

With all due respect Jo, I am pretty sure the adult diaper didnt set off the metal detector.

I am pretty sure travelers have to remove their shoes for inspection because of the guy who smuggled a bomb on board in his shoes. And the guy who tried to smuggle a bomb in his underwear is what prompted the invasive patdowns that are now done and the underwear checks. Restrictions on shampoos and mouthwashes and liquids are a result of something that was found that did not involve shampoo, mouthwashes, or water bottles.

I also cannot remember one single instance where a terrorist plot within the USA involved using children, or the elderly or anyone in wheelchair.

The regs are, in my opinion and as far as I know I still have a right to one, overreactions to the actual threat. It is the government instilling fear in its citizens.

Some of us do not believe the government accounts of what happened on 9/11 or how the twin towers really fell, or the actual realistic terrorist threat regarding air travel.

You, of course, are welcome to have different opinion.

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by Kobi

With all due respect Jo, I am pretty sure the adult diaper didnt set off the metal detector.

Hi Kobi,
I don't think anyone has suggested that the adult diaper set off the metal detector. I believe, from the article, the issue was that since she was not ambulatory enough to clear the metal detector without the wheelchair, she was subjected to a more extensive search...as is TSA policy. I'm not saying that policy is good or bad.

I am pretty sure travelers have to remove their shoes for inspection because of the guy who smuggled a bomb on board in his shoes. And the guy who tried to smuggle a bomb in his underwear is what prompted the invasive patdowns that are now done and the underwear checks. Restrictions on shampoos and mouthwashes and liquids are a result of something that was found that did not involve shampoo, mouthwashes, or water bottles.

I'm pretty sure that you're right...that shoe removal came about because of the "shoe bomber" episode. I'm sure that I've been subject to pat downs before the underwear incident because I tend to fly in full skirts (for the comfort factor). I think the article that Yellow Band posted points to the reason for that...and may also be a factor with other loose or baggy clothing.

I also cannot remember one single instance where a terrorist plot within the USA involved using children, or the elderly or anyone in wheelchair.

Agreed. However, I couldn't say the same worldwide...and that it wouldn't or couldn't happen here as well.

The regs are, in my opinion and as far as I know I still have a right to one, overreactions to the actual threat. It is the government instilling fear in its citizens.

Again, I agree. I think that all of the constant "threat level" announcements in the airport are pointless...and that we fan fear and hysteria for all kinds of reasons.

Some of us do not believe the government accounts of what happened on 9/11 or how the twin towers really fell, or the actual realistic terrorist threat regarding air travel.

And theories about 9/11? That could be a whole other thread (if it isn't already).

You, of course, are welcome to have different opinion.

I read an interesting blog on how the TSA gets away with these measures by calling them "administrative searches." Here's a link for anyone that's interested....and I think the writer has a valid point. If we disagree with these searches, then we need to challenge them in court and with our legislators. That's the only way things will be changed.

[Andrea]

A list of some of the current lawsuits:

Corbett v. US, 10-CV-24106, SDFL 11/16/2010 ["The Florida Businessman"]
Roberts v. Nappy, 10-CV-1966, DCD 11/16/2010 ["Rutherford the First]
Fielder v. Nappy, 10-CV-2878, COD 11/26/2010 ["The Colorado Attorney"]
Redfern v. Nappy, 10-CV-12048, MAD 11/29/2010 ["The Harvard Law Students"]
Blitz v. Nappy, 10-CV-930, MDNC 12/03/2010 ["North Carolina Family"]
Durso v. Nappy, 10-CV-2066, DCD 12/06/2010 ["Rutherford the Second"]

Writing to legislators results in automated responses referring to 9/11 and the need for security. Few legislators appear to be willing to go up against Homeland Security and the Patriot Act. However, that shouldn't stop you from contacting your representatives often.

Andrea

[Andrea]

The following posting is by a member of flyertalk, from the Travel Safety/Security forum. The number of per day passengers is an estimate provided in a posting by an employee of TSA.

"Even if all 2 million passengers alarmed, and using the (faux) stat above of 99.99% resolved towards the passenger's benefit, why should those 1,999,800 people (99.99%) be inconvenienced for the 200 people (0.01%) that may have something that is "banned" from the secure side?

And, admittedly guessing, I would guess a large majority of the 'guilty' are for questionable items (too much water, nailclippers w/ a file attached, every day pocket knife). Another fair percentage for reasonable items that were inadvertantly brought. Leaving only 1 or 2 that may have brought something with ill intent. (And I have to question the 1 or 2 as we would be hearing about it more often if that were the case.)

So the TSA chooses, in my opinion, to waste a lot of time, energy, and money searching all 2,000,000 passengers daily (initially intended to be screened the same) to more than a typical administrative search (WTMD and x-ray carryons) for a less than 0.01% chance that that passenger is actually "The 1".

As well, I know several have seen the estimate that the odds of being killed by a terrorist flying to, from, or within the US on an airplane is roughly 1 in 10,000,000. Extrapolating out, and using a 100 passenger per plane average, roughly means that once every 500 days that "The 1" passenger has the true ill intent. One passenger out of 100 million passengers - I have a better chance to win the lottery."

Makes you think, doesn't it?

Andrea