TSA agent searches a suspect

[Ichingcarpenter]

[WinkyDink]

1. Be fair! Maybe it's that e-Trade baby!

[The Backlash Cometh]

123. I think he's really a 45 year old dwarf who has a diaper fetish.

[SDuderstadt]

2. I call bullshit...

the woman is standing at the table where carry-on luggage is more thoroughly searched. She is holding her child and has a smile on her face.

Unrecced for jumping to conclusions.

[Ichingcarpenter]

3. Oh, you hold babies like that? Really?

WHY? Do you know how hard it is to hold it that way?

[SDuderstadt]

7. I have seen plenty of babies held...

that way.

Why is the woman smiling? Why is her luggage on the table?

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WinkyDink]

4. You think the TSA guy is looking at luggage, while the mother holds her child in that bizarre

posture? He's searching the BABY.

[nebenaube]

6. Sorry... nobody holds a child like that.... n/t

[SDuderstadt]

10. Why is the mother...

smiling?

[WinkyDink]

13. Because she loves her baby? I blew it up to 400%; you can't tell her expression. Anyway, maybe a

joke was just cracked.

[LooseWilly]

138. The mother is clearly smiling because she was afraid the baby meant to do her in on the plane.

Because sometimes you have to get "proactive" in your parenting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYIHoinQHmg&feature=related

And it's a joy when you can get a little help from TSA...

(Seriously, does the possibility that the TSA agents and the mom can both laugh at the absurdity of a requirement to pat down a baby... make it any less jaw-dropping that... TSA is now patting down babies?)

[rfranklin]

11. Not typically but during diaper searches it is very common...

You must ride the bus.

[MineralMan]

24. The photo is evidence that you are incorrect.

Right? "Nobody" excludes everybody.

[sabrina 1]

80. Ever held a baby?

That photo should disgust any decent person in this country.

I hope the lawsuits against these abuses get this problem solved. And kudos to all the citizens who have filed suit against this profit-making scheme.

[Bluebear]

92. Of course you do.

[Very_Boring_Name]

119. You can tell she's smiling when her face is AWAY from the camera?

:eyes:

[SDuderstadt]

120. Her face isn't...

"away" from the camera.

[Name removed]

150. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wait Wut]

159. Agreed.

They're all smiling.

[MuseRider]

5. Hope his pants were loaded. n/t

[Ichingcarpenter]

9. He must of smelled something and needed

to see what was hidden in the pampers.

[rfranklin]

12. Could have been explosive diarrhea...

that stuff is deadly!

[Ichingcarpenter]

17. Maybe that's why the Mom is smiling

That she knows something that the TSA agent doesn't.

[MuseRider]

30. Must have exceeded the 3 oz limit?

[Renew Deal]

50. That kid is a prime suspect for an underwear bomb.

:hide:

[MineralMan]

14. Why is everyone in that photo smiling?

Doesn't look like any of them are too put out over this, now, does it? Unrecced for photo that doesn't match post.

[WinkyDink]

15. One small moment when one of them may have said something humorous; or maybe the kid burped.

WHAT IS GOING ON, THEN, IN YOUR OPINION?

[MineralMan]

21. Uh, what's going on is a routine TSA screening.

Anyone who flies sees this happening on a regular basis. Afterwards, mom and baby will go to their gate, get on the plane and fly to their destination. With any luck, the baby will sleep through the flight and not have ear pain.

What do you think is going on? The only people perturbed about this aren't in the photo and weren't there at that time.

"Can you hold the baby so I can pat the diaper area? Thanks."

All caps don't make your point any better, you know.

[SDuderstadt]

22. Actually, see the stacks of plastic tubs...

on the wheeled cart on the ground?

Those are typically seen at the beginning of the line or the end of the line, not the search area. Again, the OP provides zero context for the picture.

[MineralMan]

25. Yup, you're right. This whole OP is just another failed

attempt at trying to demonize the TSA. I hope mom and baby had a nice flight. Maybe they were going to visit grandma.

[SDuderstadt]

27. Here's another good question...

if the male agent is "searching" the baby, why don't his hands appear to be on the baby?

[MineralMan]

45. I don't know.

A fraction of a second in time. That's photography for you.

[LisaL]

72. Here. Read the interview with a person who took this photo.

This baby was patted down at KCI "from top to bottom."

"I saw them patting the baby down from top to bottom. The mom was holding the baby, and she was being very cooperative."
http://www.elliott.org/blog/tsa-baby-pat-down-photographer-ive-never-seen-anything-quite-that-bad/

[LisaL]

26. They appear to be in some sort of glass enclosure.

Sure looks like a search area to me.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jberryhill]

47. The actual tip-off is the garbage can

The garbage cans are placed on the way in, so you can dispose of any liquids or other items you don't want to take through.

They don't put garbage cans in the search area for the quite obvious reason.

[SDuderstadt]

48. Thanks, JB...

good observation.

[LisaL]

75. Wrong.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WinkyDink]

38. I'll use [i]italics[/i] next time.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MineralMan]

23. What's fun is watching people try to turn a TSA screening

into fascism. Don't fly much, do you? You've never seen anything like this, eh?

[baldguy]

60. How many terrorists has all this govt-approved groping actually caught?

[SDuderstadt]

61. How many plots have they...

prevented?

The point is to keep them off the planes. Dub.

[baldguy]

64. The point is to acclimate the general public to intrusions on their personal liberty.

Strip-searching toddlers & grandmothers, and feeling up people's crotches doesn't do anything to catch actual terrorists engaged in actual terrorism. Regular, boring old police work by the FBI and state & local authorities, and plain intelligence analysis by the CIA have been much more effective, many times over.

What the TSA supplies to the flying public is FALSE security. The sooner we all clue in to the fact that the Great Grope - and every other "enhanced security" feature left over from the Bush Regime we have to deal with - has nothing to do with security & needs to be jettisoned, the better off we'll be.

[SDuderstadt]

65. I fly frequently and...

it's nowhere near as bad as you're making it out to be.

My advice would be not to fly, dude.

[Mimosa]

160. ^ Amen, Baldguy ^

I've long believed that we are being conditioned to accept orders from 'authority figures' no matter how small. ;)

We'll' end up being obedient, like the Good Germans of WWII. We'll do what we're told. After all, it's to 'keep us safe.'

[krabigirl]

106. I haven't flown since they introduced the new scanners. I hope not to until I absolutely have to.

[SDuderstadt]

108. I hope you don't...

either.

[Gormy Cuss]

126. What's sad is watching people go along with every harebrained, Rube Goldberg-esque TSA

procedure without once questioning whether it's necessary or effective.

[sabrina 1]

83. THEY are not the issue!

The profit-making scheme using fear to take away rights from Americans is the issue. Fortunately many lawsuits have been filed, and hopefully there will be more. And two states' legislatures are moving to ban the aptly and cynically named Rapiscans from their states, which will also eliminate the 'enhanced patdowns'. Those abusive searches were designed to force people to choose the Rapiscans as so many travellers were opting out of using them. And we couldn't have that as if they were not being used, Chertoff and his buddies would not make their profits.

Rec'd and :kick:

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sabrina 1]

94. Brilliant response. We, the left, supporting Civil Rights

Organizations, kept those vile machines out of our airports for six years during the Bush administration. Every argument made against them, was upheld and Chertoff and his fear-mongering profiteers could not sell their Rapiscans in this country. The European Union has refused them also because they 'do not contribute anything to the security of the travelling public'. Not to mention the violation of rights involved in their use. I guess Europeans are not as easily frightened as Americans.

Bullshit is exactly what it is. That we could stop the Bush administration from using, but we put a Democrat in the WH and Chertoff et al finally get to profit from the Bush Admin. fear-mongering propaganda.

[SDuderstadt]

95. You forgot to mention the...

recent bomb attempts.

[sabrina 1]

114. No, I didn't.

I am just not worried about it. The odds of dying-by-terror are so slim, compared say, to dying from lack of healthcare (44,000 per year, more than half a million since the last 3,000 killed by terror) or on the road or just by airline accident, by murder. I'm just not scared enough to give up my rights to try to feel a teeny bit safer. People are willing to die, and are, for the rights some people here are so willing to give up.


I guess I just don't scare as easily as you do. This is nothing but a scam for profit. Shiver in your boots if you wish, I will do everything I can to help those who are working to stop this shameful nonsense.

[SDuderstadt]

116. And you know that...

security systems contribute nothing to lowering the chances of dying in a terrorist attack?

[sabrina 1]

121. I'm not worried about a terrorist attack. Why should I?

On the scale of threats, terror is among the least likely to happen to people. And if we would end our illegal wars, and stop killing people in other countries, the threat would be zero.

There are far greater threats facing people in this country right now, we are sick to death of hearing about 'terra'. How about saving the lives of those who are without healthcare? THAT is a terror threat, to be sick and not be able to get the help needed. We are the ONLY country in the civilized world that allows its citizens to die like this.

Not one person in Europe dies for lack of access to HC. It is shameful and frightening. And you want us to believe that a government that would this to happen, is worried about protecting its citizens?? I'd laugh if it wasn't so sad.

And people losing their homes, their jobs, and as a result, their health. And you want me to worry about the remote possibility of a terror attack? It is all hyped out of proportion to keep the MIC in business. A lot more lives would be saved if all that money used to fight the so-called WOT, was used to ACTUALLY protect the American people from dying of poverty and illness.

[SDuderstadt]

122. Why don't you describe the...

security system you would have?

You also seem to be suggesting we deserved to be attacked. Did I get that wrong?

[sabrina 1]

127. Put it this way, if I believed our country was in danger of being

attacked, I would not send the military to every country in the world where they can do nothing if we are attacked. Sun Tsu would be appalled at that strategy.

The failure of that strategy was never more evident than when this country was threatened by a natural disaster that was the equivalent of a bomb falling on a major city. We lost that city, because the 'decider' was busy worrying about a totally irrelevant country as far as our safety was concerned, and the NG were off fighting windmills in a country that never even threatened us and were not available for the job they have spent so long training for, here at home.

If the leader of this country had actually cared about our security, the loss of a major city might not have happened, and certainly there would have been far less loss of life.

Sending your troops all over the world while claiming it is HERE we will be attacked is just plain stupid military strategy, and it leads a lot of people to question either the sanity of that leader, or his motives and the facts of his claims.

We had a security system that worked fine, but it was not implemented. I would go back to that system and stop doing to this country what no terrorist can do no matter how hard they try, throwing away our Constitution.

Searching in the most intrusive and abusive ways, babies, old ladies and disabled people who merely want to take a trip to see their families, certainly doesn't make me any safer. But it will enrich an awful lot of the same people who FAILED to protect this country. They FAILED on 9/11 and they FAILED when Katrina struck. Chertoff, the failure, head of the org that SHOULD HAVE saved lives in NOLA. You trust these failures on security to protect you? Their bank accounts thank Americans who are blind to the scam.

[SDuderstadt]

128. "We had a security system that worked fine"

Really? Could you describe that system?

As far as how our military is deployed, ever notice we've gone nearly 70 years without another world war? Do you really think the next attack on the United States will be some sort of invading ground force? Even if it was, do you not think the U.S. has the ability to detect it quickly and redeploy troops and equipment as needed?

[sabrina 1]

129. What I think doesn't matter. What we are told we need to be

frightened of is what I am referring to. An attack on US soil is what all this is supposed to be preventing.

'Do you think the US has the ability to detect it quickly and redeply troops and equipment as needed'?

Did they detect 9/11 quickly?

The answer is 'yes'. Bush received 52 warnings of an impending attack, all of which were ignored. So, no matter what they can do, if the government is incompetent, it won't matter. That doesn't mean the system wasn't working, just the CIC who chose to go on vacation.

Clinton, eg, never ignored those threat warnings and as a result was able to stop several attacks on US soil, one of which, had it succeeded would have been worse than 9/11. So yes, the security system was working and was not the problem.

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sabrina 1]

133. You really should take a break. You're getting agitated

over a simple discussion.

Clinton did not thwart the Bojinka Plot, the plot was uncovered in the Philipines and then reported to the CIA. That plot, had it succeeded would have hi-jacked 12 planes and crashed them and their 4,000 passengers into various buildings in the US. Back then, Al Qaeda had not yet been connected to the many terror attacks, including the first WTC bombing.

But it WAS during the Clinton admins. that that connection began to be made. However, the Repubs constantly accused Clinton of 'wagging the dog' over his insistence that terror was a big threat to this country. Still, the NYC tunnel bombing was prevented, among others and through the trials of the 1993 bombers, a great deal of information was revealed about the terror network, enough that the intelligence community were pretty certain that there would be another major attack on US soil. Anyone paying attention to those trials, as we in NY most certainly did, never doubted there would be another attack. Only morons like Giuliani and George Bush decided there was not problem that required their attention and they are responsible for gross negligence of their duty to the American people.

So, since the intel. community was doing its job, they warned about the imminent attack during the summer of 2001, the system was working. But without the cooperation of the top people there was no way to stop it. That does NOT mean the system itself failed, it means Bush/Cheney,Giuliani et al failed.

Systems always need updating and improvements, but there is no way anyone can fault those who were desperately trying to stop an attack they absolutely had uncovered using the system that was then in place.

The pretext of 'who could have imagined' was a lie! And everything after that has been a lie. The wars, the waste of lives and money, none of which have done a single thing to make this country safer.

[SDuderstadt]

141. "Systems always need updating and improvements"

Exactly, which is why the TSA has to adapt to evolving terrorist tactics and strategies.

And, I'm not getting "agitated" over a discussion; I'm frustrated trying to reason with you.

[sabrina 1]

144. The TSA is wasting money and effort with these tactics.

Anyone who wants to get a weapon on a plane only has to use the baggage dept. So while they are molesting women and children and men, the real terrorists if they want to, can easily go through their machines and/or patdowns while the bomb is in the baggage dept.

This is a scam, a money-making scam for Chertoff and the rest of the fear-mongering profiteers and I hope to see it ended soon as more and more citizens are standing up for their rights.

As for YOU being frustrated, did it ever occur to you that OTHER people might be frustrated with you? You are viewing things through your prism of fear. They got to you, you're scared, find. I'm not and neither are most people I know and they think this whole TSA nonsense needs to stop.

[SDuderstadt]

147. You don't get to decide safety for....

everyone else and your naivete is simply stunning.

[barbtries]

16. wow.

just wow.

[baldguy]

18. If you want to be a passenger on a commercial flight then you're automatically suspicious.

[LibDemAlways]

52. Yep, small babies, elderly Alzheimers patients, families on the

way to Disney World - all potential terrorists in the eyes of the idiots at "Homeland" Security. God, I hate this shit.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

19. Please provide the source for...

that photo.

Why did you not provide actual context for it?

[tammywammy]

29. +1 n/t

[Ichingcarpenter]

33. They search babies and kids all the time

...... Do a search this happens
Time magazine even has an article on how to ease the trauma.



How to Get Your Kid Through the TSA 'Pat-Down' With Little Trauma




Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2010/11/23/how-to-get-your-kid-through-the-tsa-pat-down-with-little-trauma/#ixzz1LroeICRv

[SDuderstadt]

36. I am asking about...

this specific picture, dude.

Please quit trying to move the goalposts.

[Ichingcarpenter]

41. Kansas City International Airport

Link:http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=35217

[SDuderstadt]

42. That's it?

Some guy named JacobJester tweets that he saw a baby being patted down and you just uncritically bought it? Did the mother file a complaint? Did you bother to fact-check the claim in any way?

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

44. Sounds like someone keeps trying to...

deflect attention away from their lack of proof for their OP.

[uppityperson]

59. They can now link back to this DU topic to prove it was real. See?

I link to you, you link to me, round and round and it "becomes real".

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LibDemAlways]

31. It looks to me like a couple of TSA pervs focused on

a baby's diaper area. It's not the kind of photo a person would be likely to take unless he had reason to believe something weird was going on.

Meantime, a guy was subdued on a San Francisco bound flight for trying to bust into the cockpit.

The geniuses in this country don't understand that the most important part of the traveller is the head and what's going on inside of it. It's easier (and more lucrative for guys like Chertoff) to nudie scan and feel people up in a paranoid display of bullshit "security" theatre.

[SDuderstadt]

34. You have zero idea...

why the picture was taken.

Since the OP utterly failed to provide any context for the picture, neither does anyone else.

[LisaL]

74. This photo was taken because a person who took it

saw this baby patted down from "top to bottom." Happy now?

[uppityperson]

32. link to what this is from, otherwise it is just a picture and I will unrec

[Ichingcarpenter]

35. It will come this is just a breaking web picture but

if you chose you can do a google search on TSA and babies/infants.

I really don't care if you..... 'unrecorded'
Are you saying this doesn't happen?

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rfranklin]

39. Just wondering why you are so emotionally involved...

Are you with Homeland Security?

[SDuderstadt]

40. Umm, no...

I just take exception to posters posting inconclusive photos with inflammatory subject lines without commensurate evidence.

I will ask you politely not to question my motivation again.

[LisaL]

76. There is nothing inconclusive about this photo.

[SDuderstadt]

78. Bullshit...

Which is why I asked the OP for additional detail.

[uppityperson]

58. I could do a googlesearch on any 2 terms and are you seriously saying you don't know what "unrec" is

Or are you just being contrary? It is your OP and you should know where you got it from. Why will you not tell us?

[Warren DeMontague]

46. there could be a dirty bomb in there.

or, at least, a doody bomb.

[Rex]

57. I saw 'explosive diarrhea' mentioned.

[Renew Deal]

49. They're not searching him. They put him through the xray machine.

:evilgrin:

[LibDemAlways]

51. Given the caliber of the people hired to work at TSA, that's a

definite possibility.

[jberryhill]

53. Or public employees in general, right Guv?

[Prometheus Bound]

56. Two weirdos and a baby

[LibDemAlways]

63. "Weirdos" is right. n/t

[Liberal_in_LA]

62. oh my gosh

[Hippo_Tron]

66. And you don't think a terrorist would use a baby to transport a bomb?

Yes I know the odds are 1 in some astronomically large number that he has a bomb, just like the odds are 1 in some astronomically large number that a guy with dark skin and a Middle Eastern name has a bomb when trying to get on a plane. They aren't inspecting the baby because he looks suspicious. They're inspecting the baby because if the TSA has a blanket policy of never inspecting babies, then there would be an easily exploitable gap in their security.

We can argue whether these screenings are worth the price we pay for them, but the argument that we should only check "suspicious" people is ridiculous.

[grahamhgreen]

71. Horsecrap. If the terrorist want to get something on a plane - they will.

Stop being afraid.

The only people who stopped the terrorists on 9-11 were people like you and me.

[LibDemAlways]

124. People who think that TSA personnel have the know-how to

prevent a terrorist from boarding an aircraft are delusional. These people aren't highly qualified, well-trained security professionals. They are about on par with mall security, if that.

Patting down the diapers of infants makes no one safer, and it's ludicrous for anyone to suggest otherwise.

[Hippo_Tron]

154. As I said, we can argue about whether or not the screenings are worth the price we pay for them

Considering your odds of being killed by a terrorist are less than your odds of being struck by lightning twice. But if we're going to screen as a means of slightly impeding terrorists then the only way to do it is to screen everybody, not just suspicious looking people. Otherwise we might as well not screen at all.

[grahamhgreen]

155. I prefer not at all.

[Hippo_Tron]

156. And as I said, that's a perfectly valid argument (albeit one that is hard to get people to swallow)

If you live in the United States, terrorism is an irrational fear. We react to it in a manner that is far disproportionate to the number of people it actually kills. Unfortunately, that's basic human nature. If it didn't work that way, terrorists wouldn't even bother.

[The Midway Rebel]

67. This story made the local 10 o'clock news.

It was a hand search of an infant by TSA agents at KCI airport. Photo was taken by another passenger. According to a witness, the baby was in a stroller that was being searched with a hand held chemical trace sniffer. The sniffer went off so the baby was removed from the stroller and subjected to hand pat down.


I feel much safer now and I'll bet the baby had a sulfurous smelling load in his diaper.

[SDuderstadt]

68. When the chemical trace sniffer went off...

what should the TSA have done? Just said, "Oh, it's a baby, so we'll disregard safety precautions?".

Public safety trumps personal inconvenience.

[The Midway Rebel]

69. "What should the TSA should have done?"

Since you asked me personally, I will respond. Maybe the TSA should have some sort of sane and rational set of procedures and policies for boarding a flight in the first place. Considering everyone a threat is crazy paranoid and perhaps even useless, IMHO.

[SDuderstadt]

79. Which would be...

what?

[The Midway Rebel]

88. In short....

something sane and rational. Like I said, considering everyone suspect is paranoid crazy and probably useless.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LibDemAlways]

152. not to mention a tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars that

could be better spent providing "intelligent" security - but that's apparently asking too much of the brainless bunch at "Homeland" Security who think this shit up.

[Hippo_Tron]

157. TSA doesn't consider everyone suspect

However, terrorists aren't morons and if TSA only checked "suspicious people" they would pretty easily figure out how to avoid looking suspicious in the eyes of TSA.

You don't seem to have a sane rational alternative that you speak of. As I said above, dropping the screening and not fearing that your plane will get blown up is one alternative. But that's too contradictory to human nature to work.

[LisaL]

165. If they search everyone, how is that they don't consider

everyone a suspect? :eyes:

[SDuderstadt]

168. LOL!

Do you understand what the word "suspect' even means?

[The Midway Rebel]

169. I disagree.

Firstly, I think terrorists ARE morons.

Secondly, you seem to contradict yourself. You claim that not everyone who boards a plane is suspect and then explain why everyone who boards a plane IS a suspect because not only terrorists look suspicious and therefore EVERYONE should be searched. Third, I never claimed that I had a sane rational alternative, only that the current system is the opposite.

Lastly, as I explained in the now deleted sub thread, I do not fly and will not fly until a sane and rational policy and procedure for boarding a plane is developed.

[SDuderstadt]

170. Which you can't seem to describe...

Let's hear your design.

[The Midway Rebel]

171. Here it is. You ready?

I. Do. Not. Fly.



Get it?

[SDuderstadt]

172. In other words...

you can't.

Got it.

[The Midway Rebel]

173. No.

Won't.

[SDuderstadt]

174. You "won't" because you...

"can't".

It's pretty obvious.

[The Midway Rebel]

175. Maybe.

But certainly not as obvious as that photo of the baby being frisk searched which you denied ever happened.

[LisaL]

73. Really? That's all you can come up with, after you have

been arguing so hard that it really couldn't have happened?

[SDuderstadt]

81. Re-read what I wrote...

Did the OP tell us that the infant's stroller set off the chemical trace sniffer?

[LisaL]

86. I am so glad that TSA agents are there to protect us from a baby.

:eyes:

[SDuderstadt]

90. Whose stroller set off the...

chemical trace sniffer.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

82. In a word?

Yes.

[LisaL]

87. What a relief it is to be safe because a baby was patted down

from top to bottom.

[SDuderstadt]

93. Whose stroller set off the...

chemical trace sniffer. You left out that part.

[LisaL]

96. And?

Is there any use to these "chemical trace sniffers?" Considering the baby obviously was not a terrorist.

[SDuderstadt]

97. Yes...

Duh.

[LisaL]

98. How many terrorists have TSA caught using those things?

Do tell.

[SDuderstadt]

99. It's about...

prevention. Duh.

[LisaL]

101. So, in other words, none.

[SDuderstadt]

102. What do you think the aim of...

a security system is?

[krabigirl]

104. omg. seriously? if so, this country is beyond repair. nt

[SDuderstadt]

105. Then, design a better...

system.

I'm certain you have experience in that, right?

[grahamhgreen]

70. Perverted sociopaths.

[Bluebear]

91. .

[Prometheus Bound]

100. They frisked the baby cause his stroller beeped. Disgusting

Baby bomb threat: Outrage as toddler is given full frisking by TSA agents

The image of the baby being touched down by agents was taken yesterday by fellow passenger Jacob Jester, as proof of what he thought was an 'extreme' measure.

TSA agents insisted on frisking the baby after his stroller beeped when it went through security.

Jester uploaded the photograph onto Twitter and wrote: 'Just saw #tsa agents patting down a little baby at @KCIAirport. Pretty sure that's extreme.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1385207/Baby-bomb-threat-Outrage-toddler-given-frisking-TSA-agents.html#ixzz1LvWSzAiO

[Ichingcarpenter]

107. Seems I'm vindicated that it happened thanks for the update

I thought it was humorous when I saw it and the story was breaking but some here got their panties in a bunch and 'know how babies are held' and they are held like that...LOL

[SDuderstadt]

109. Dude...

re-read your OP again.

[Ichingcarpenter]

110. Keep digging your hole ...you lost...DUDE N/T

[SDuderstadt]

111. Re-read your OP and...

point to where you provided any context whatsoever, dude.

[Prometheus Bound]

112. You'd think they'd be angry at the TSA perverts, not you for posting it.

Very strange.

[SDuderstadt]

113. "TSA perverts"

Nice demonization, dude.

[Prometheus Bound]

115. Thanks ma'am.

[LibDemAlways]

125. I posted above that the baby had to have been patted down for

someone to take a picture of it. Mr. Jester was performing a valuable public service - to illustrate the absolute inanity of this tax-supported nonsense.

[krabigirl]

103. ........

[Scottybeamer70]

117. They have to have a chemical trace sniffer.......

to figure out what baby doody is????
Guess that's why they don't work in a nursery wing at a hospital.
.......and I don't need a DUDE comment either.......save it.

[SDuderstadt]

118. Maybe you should read the actual details...

before you post, dude.

[Autumn]

131. It's a bomb !!!!

a big ole diaper bomb.:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: That would be funny if he got a hand full.

[SDuderstadt]

132. Of course...

you omit the fact that the stroller set off the chemical trace sniffer.

[Autumn]

134. I hope some day, scientists will discover a way to implant

a sense humor in people who are so severely lacking one. Chill out, it's a funny picture. I didn't read the article. I looked at the picture and said to myself, oh how funny they are patting down a baby. Wouldn't it be funny if the cute baby had a full diaper.:rofl:

[SDuderstadt]

135. "I didn't read the article"

No, really?

[Autumn]

136. Really!!!! It was a funny picture

you got to admit, the baby's body language is like, WTF are you doing Dude?

[Prometheus Bound]

137. It's the Andrew Bynum effect.

Frustration.
http://www.nowpublic.com/sports/andrew-bynum-elbow-jj-barea-video-flagrant-foul-may-8-2011-2785482.html

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BlueIris]

139. "Uncomforable," but "necessary." nt

[Nye Bevan]

142. Look at the mom and the baby. What is the probability that they are terrorists?

Why is the TSA wasting time pulling this kind of stuff when they could be scrutinizing (for example) males traveling on one-way tickets?

Simply astounding idiocy.

[SDuderstadt]

143. The baby's stroller triggered the...

chemical trace sniffer. Should the TSA just ignore that?

[LibDemAlways]

145. The probability that they are terrorists is zilch. However, the

TSA apologists argue that profiling cannot be allowed, and thus everyone must be scrutinized - even infants. You know it's bullshit. I know it's bullshit, but it will continue until the traveling public decides to wield its considerable economic power and quit discretionary flying. Only when the airlines' bottom line is suffering major damage because of this nonsense will the CEOs demand changes.

I have already quit flying. My daughter turned down a scholarship to an out of state college because she doesn't want a nudie scan or feel-up as a condition of transportation to campus.

It's a goddamned shame it's come to this. The geniuses at the Dept. of "Homeland" Security have no clue that the most important body part of a would-be terrorist is his brain and what's going on inside it. Instead of implementing Israeli style security measures at the airport, looking out for suspicious behavior and conducting face to face interviews, our boneheads are feeling around in babies' diapers. Pathetic.

[Hippo_Tron]

158. You really think terrorists are that stupid?

Yes lets only check males traveling on one way tickets. Because they must be too stupid to learn how to buy a round-trip tickets in order to not raise suspicion.

:eyes:

[LisaL]

167. How do you ever leave your house? After all, terrorists could

be anywhere.

[Hippo_Tron]

176. Please read my posts upthread, I don't think you understand my point

I'm not arguing that we ought to be frisking and porno scanning everyone. In fact the odds of being killed by a terrorist are so miniscule that it's a fairly irrational thing to submit to.

That said, I'm sick of the argument that TSA ought to be screening suspicious Arabic men with one way tickets rather than everybody else. If we're going to submit to this crap then the only way to make it even remotely effective is for everybody to submit. Otherwise we're just subjecting some people to it for no reason whatsoever.

[Prometheus Bound]

146. A few of these authoritarian types won't be satisfied til rectal exams are mandatory for everyone

plane, train, boat and bus

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bonobo]

149. It is telling that this photo was obviously taken surreptitiously.

Photos are forbidden so no real evidence of these searches can be easily provided.

[LibDemAlways]

153. The guy who took the photo would have had no reason to take it if what he

was observing didn't strike him as "extreme." Glad he did. It illustrates how TSA is multi-tasking by wasting our tax dollars while looking like fools, engaging in completely useless nonsense.

[Mimosa]

161. I didn't know they prohibit photos.

Cops everywhere are trying to get that legislated.

[pa28]

151. The real story is the policy behind this picture. Not the TSA agent.

I'd be inclined to question Homeland Security dicta before individual employees.

[SDuderstadt]

162. He who laughs last...

Ha ha ha!

1) The screeners were not TSA.

2) The mother of the baby is laughing the whole thing off.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/05/11/state/n152134D88.DTL&tsp=1

[Name removed]

163. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LisaL]

164. The screeners have to follow TSA procedures.

So what difference does it make if they are TSA or not?

[Name removed]

166. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.