Jump to content

Airport 'pat-downs' cause growing passenger backlash

Shortline Bus

By Shortline Bus,
in Civil & Commercial Aviation

Recommended Posts


Messino

Messino

Posted
Posted

what about this?

 

TSA agents are low life scumbags plain and simple........

 

TSA pat-down leaves traveler covered in urine

 

Sawyer is a bladder cancer survivor who now wears a urostomy bag, which collects his urine from a stoma, or opening in his abdomen. “I have to wear special clothes and in order to mount the bag I have to seal a wafer to my stomach and then attach the bag. If the seal is broken, urine can leak all over my body and clothes.”

 

On Nov. 7, Sawyer said he went through the security scanner at Detroit Metropolitan Airport. “Evidently the scanner picked up on my urostomy bag, because I was chosen for a pat-down procedure.”

 

Due to his medical condition, Sawyer asked to be screened in private. “One officer looked at another, rolled his eyes and said that they really didn’t have any place to take me,” said Sawyer. “After I said again that I’d like privacy, they took me to an office.”

 

Sawyer wears pants two sizes too large in order to accommodate the medical equipment he wears. He’d taken off his belt to go through the scanner and once in the office with security personnel, his pants fell down around his ankles. “I had to ask twice if it was OK to pull up my shorts,” said Sawyer, “And every time I tried to tell them about my medical condition, they said they didn’t need to know about that.”

 

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40291856/ns/travel-news

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shortline Bus

Shortline Bus

Posted
  • Author
Posted
what about this?

 

TSA agents are low life scumbags plain and simple........

 

TSA pat-down leaves traveler covered in urine

 

Sawyer is a bladder cancer survivor who now wears a urostomy bag, which collects his urine from a stoma, or opening in his abdomen. “I have to wear special clothes and in order to mount the bag I have to seal a wafer to my stomach and then attach the bag. If the seal is broken, urine can leak all over my body and clothes.”

 

On Nov. 7, Sawyer said he went through the security scanner at Detroit Metropolitan Airport. “Evidently the scanner picked up on my urostomy bag, because I was chosen for a pat-down procedure.”

 

Due to his medical condition, Sawyer asked to be screened in private. “One officer looked at another, rolled his eyes and said that they really didn’t have any place to take me,” said Sawyer. “After I said again that I’d like privacy, they took me to an office.”

 

Sawyer wears pants two sizes too large in order to accommodate the medical equipment he wears. He’d taken off his belt to go through the scanner and once in the office with security personnel, his pants fell down around his ankles. “I had to ask twice if it was OK to pull up my shorts,” said Sawyer, “And every time I tried to tell them about my medical condition, they said they didn’t need to know about that.”

 

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40291856/ns/travel-news

 

 

All i can say in reaction to this situation. I am 99.9% sure that a multi-dollar lawsuit against the TSA is coming.:eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Joe

Joe

Posted
Posted
On what grounds? The smart thing would have been to tell the TSA agents about the medical condition as soon as he was pulled to the side.

 

As always, the article informs:

 

“I had to ask twice if it was OK to pull up my shorts,” said Sawyer, “And every time I tried to tell them about my medical condition, they said they didn’t need to know about that.”
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SubwayGuy

SubwayGuy

Posted
Posted
I read that. My point is why would he not say anything up front, and from a legal standpoint, I still would like to know on what grounds can he sue?

 

Because obviously he tried and they told him they did not want to hear it. He doesn't need "grounds" for anything. Here, you can sue or be sued for absolutely anything. He can claim any of a number of things in the suit. If the media picks up on his case, which it seems they already have, general public opinion will generally be swayed in his favor and rather than risk a huge verdict, odds are the case is settled quietly out of court with a "please don't speak bad about us" order.

 

Such is justice in our 21st century lawsuit-driven country. I wish it wasn't the case, but it is, although in this case I think he has every right to sue (where if you read many of my other lawsuit related posts I don't believe in punitive damages). Unfortunately Money talks and bullshit walks so the best way to challenge these unfair, and probably illegal, TSA practices is to keep suing and winning money in the courts. Money or people dying seems to be the only ways things get changed in this country anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
East New York

East New York

Posted
Posted
Because obviously he tried and they told him they did not want to hear it. He doesn't need "grounds" for anything. Here, you can sue or be sued for absolutely anything. He can claim any of a number of things in the suit. If the media picks up on his case, which it seems they already have, general public opinion will generally be swayed in his favor and rather than risk a huge verdict, odds are the case is settled quietly out of court with a "please don't speak bad about us" order.

 

Such is justice in our 21st century lawsuit-driven country. I wish it wasn't the case, but it is, although in this case I think he has every right to sue (where if you read many of my other lawsuit related posts I don't believe in punitive damages). Unfortunately Money talks and bullshit walks so the best way to challenge these unfair, and probably illegal, TSA practices is to keep suing and winning money in the courts. Money or people dying seems to be the only ways things get changed in this country anymore.

 

I see your point. I wasn't siding with the TSA or anything, but I just wanted to know what grounds, meaning what would his argument be. And "they wouldn't let me pull my pants up" seemed to be the only argument he had. True, they (TSA) were very foul for the way they handled the situation, but something just didn't seem to add up IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CenSin

CenSin

Posted
Posted
BTW they're searching little kids this way too. If the parents have any balls they could nail them on several counts for this one - endangering welfare of a child, child molestation, etc.:

 

 

Security can justify anything now… In the near future, they'll perform anal and vaginal fingering just to make sure those holes aren't misused. And eventually, there will be mandatory x-rays to make sure you haven't stored anything in your digestive system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Messino

Messino

Posted
Posted
Security can justify anything now… In the near future, they'll perform anal and vaginal fingering just to make sure those holes aren't misused. And eventually, there will be mandatory x-rays to make sure you haven't stored anything in your digestive system.

 

They already do X-Rays in foreign countries when they think someone is acting suspicious or they get a tip of someone smuggling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Urbanfortitude

Urbanfortitude

Posted
Posted
BTW they're searching little kids this way too. If the parents have any balls they could nail them on several counts for this one - endangering welfare of a child, child molestation, etc.:

*video url*

 

I'm surprised this wasn't posted up sooner. Either way I was in disbelief. This is getting out of hand and the flying industry is bound to take a huge hit if this keeps up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CenSin

CenSin

Posted
Posted

Quoted from Wikipedia, this is another interesting way to look at things:

Unintended consequences of strict security

One notable criticism of TSA airport security measures is that they result in loss of lives from an increased rate of car accident fatalities due to the unintended consequence of passengers choosing to avoid flying altogether and drive to their destination instead. A 2007 study[67] by researchers at Cornell attempted to quantify this effect, and found that a change in security practices instituted by the TSA in late 2002 caused a 6% reduction in passengers. The authors of the study estimate that this lead to 129 added driving fatalities in the fourth quarter of 2002. Extrapolating this rate of fatalities, New York Times contributor Nate Silver remarked that this is equivalent to "four fully-loaded Boeing 737s crashing each year."[68]. A related study from 2005 by the same authors[69] estimates the impact on road fatalities of the immediate aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001, and found that the change in passenger travel modes lead to 242 added driving fatalities per month, and a total of about 1,200 driving deaths which could be attributed to the short-term effects of the attacks. The change in traveler behavior is attributed in the study both to the fear of terrorist attacks and the wish to avoid the inconvenience of strict security measures, and no attempt is made to estimate separately the influence of each of these two factors; however, the study demonstrates the general conclusion that strict airport security has the unintended consequence of increased road fatalities.

A related criticism is that the reduction in passengers due to strict airport security measures also has adverse economic effects on the airline industry due to loss of business. The 2007 study mentioned above estimates that the 6% reduction in passenger traffic in the fourth quarter of 2002 cost the airline industry $1.1 billion.

Covert security test failures

Undercover operations to test the effectiveness of airport screening processes are routinely carried out by the TSA's internal affairs unit and the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General's office.

A report by the Inspector General found that TSA officials had collaborated with Covenant Aviation Security at San Francisco International Airport to alert screeners of undercover tests. From August 2003 until May 2004, precise descriptions of the undercover personnel were provided to the screeners. The handing out of descriptions was then stopped, but until January 2005 screeners were still alerted whenever undercover operations were being undertaken.[70]

A report on undercover operations conducted in October 2006 at Newark Liberty International Airport was leaked to the press. The screeners had failed 20 of 22 undercover security tests, missing numerous guns and bombs. The Government Accountability Office had previously pointed to repeated covert test failures by TSA personnel.[71][72] Revealing the results of covert tests is against TSA policy, and the agency responded by initiating an internal probe to discover the source of the leak.[73]

In July 2007, the Times Union of Albany, New York reported that TSA screeners at Albany International Airport failed multiple covert security tests conducted by the TSA. Among them was a failure to detect a fake bomb.[74]

If we look at the big picture, it's a lose-lose situation (assuming terrorists are really after us still). All the resources sunk, the inefficiency, the ineffectiveness, and the frustration…

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Messino

Messino

Posted
Posted
Tomorrow is my time to fly, or course, one of the busiest holidays for airports. I'll make sure I growl extra loud when that guy puts his hands on me and "searches", let's see the humiliation on his face. :P:tup:

 

You should eat alot of beans so you get really gassy when his hands are down there. HAH!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shortline Bus

Shortline Bus

Posted
  • Author
Posted

It's getting little out of hand to say the least. A Cancer survior from Mich. had piee all over after his bag broke during these new TSA pat-downs.

Also a Breast Cancer Patient supposedly forced to show her ' ' breast as well.

 

Here the video from the Fox-TV Detroit station and also the CBS station from Charlotte, NC.

 

1)Fox-TV Detroit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kohx0oKwj7M

 

2)CBS-TV Charlotte, NC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvDGpTBmznc&feature=related

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.

  I accept