Elderly woman (95 years old) asked to remove adult diaper during TSA search

[kpete]

Elderly woman asked to remove adult diaper during TSA search
June 25, 2011 11:09 AM
Lauren Sage Reinlie
Daily News

A woman has filed a complaint with federal authorities over how her elderly mother was treated at Northwest Florida Regional Airport last weekend.

Jean Weber of Destin filed a complaint with the Department of Homeland Security after her 95-year-old mother was detained and extensively searched last Saturday while trying to board a plane to fly to Michigan to be with family members during the final stages of her battle with leukemia.

Her mother, who was in a wheelchair, was asked to remove an adult diaper in order to complete a pat-down search.

“It’s something I couldn’t imagine happening on American soil,” Weber said Friday. “Here is my mother, 95 years old, 105 pounds, barely able to stand, and then this.”

the rest:
http://www.nwfdailynews.com/news/mother-41324-search-adult.html

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[Chipper Chat]

2. Things are totally out-of-control.

no text needed

[Blasphemer]

40. Indeed

Does no in charge have any common sense? Unless they do full cavity searches on every airline passenger, there is always a risk. Counter-terrorism efforts need to be directed elsewhere. If they feel the need to put on a security dog and pony show to make us feel better, they are failing miserably. They just look like crazy fascists. Once upon a time the U.S. media was extremely anti-Singapore for their system of justice and abridged freedoms. Where are they now when U.S. policy is taking us in the same direction?

[awoke_in_2003]

50. "Counter-terrorism efforts need to be directed elsewhere"

one area would be- stop making more terrorist. The actions of our country in other lands creates our problems, and we make more with every bombing.

[demigoddess]

107. amen

[HockeyMom]

3. What would they do with a woman having her period?

Um, a bit gross don't you think?

[butterfly77]

92. I been wondering about that...

every since they start doing this..

[LisaL]

179. I don't think I want to know.

:scared:

[Ed Suspicious]

215. I'm not a member of the fairer sex...

but it is my understanding that all that messiness stops after menopause. I take your point though. The whole idea of forcing elderly people to remove their undergarments for safety is pretty much beyond.

[pipi_k]

240. Not really the same...

If a woman is wearing a tampon, there's no problem. Just a string where nobody is going to feel it anyway.

If she's wearing a sanitary pad, it's not going to be filled with fluid to the point where it becomes hard right up the front and back, which is what happens with a Depends that's full of urine.

It takes a LOT of urine to do that. It must have felt awful for that poor woman to be sitting in what amounted to a plastic bag filled with gel that expanded from what may have been 16 oz. or more of her own urine.

It had to be at least that much to turn that gel hard enough for a TSA agent to think it strange.

[KarenS]

4. I do not ever intend to fly again.

This stuff is over-the-top,,,, shameful harassment ~ bullying, even.

My Mom is 84 and I cannot imagine how I would react.

[LisaL]

22. Just keep in mind that TSA doesn't have to stay at the airport only.

What is there to prevent them from doing the same thing at a bus stop near you, or anywhere else, really?

[woo me with science]

44. +1 They have already moved beyond the airport.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1341765

[awoke_in_2003]

52. Do they go out of their way...

to purposely make things sound sinister. I mean really, VIPR? Anyone remember GI Joe. Who was the enemy organization? COBRA

[woo me with science]

73. You know, you have a point...

Sounds like the villain's organization in a James Bond movie.

[dixiegrrrrl]

235. They already have been at bus and train depots.

Did you miss the furor about that?

[roguevalley]

103. I would have been in jail myself if they did that to my sweet mother.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

106. ditto

[pnwmom]

205. Would you put your sweet dying mother on a plane by herself

wearing a soiled diaper for a six hour flight? With no spare diapers and no one but strangers to help her?

I bet you wouldn't. But that is what this daughter wanted to do. She never intended to fly with her mother, only to accompany her all the way to the gate.

[vanbean]

237. She should have had some spare diapers for her. And she should have flown with her.

I would never have done that to either of my parents.

[ckimmy57]

277. I second that

[Hubert Flottz]

121. Everybody in the country should quit flying.

The airlines have the power to tell the idiots in Washington to STOP. The people don't have a voice anymore.

If I need to fly to get there, I'll just stay at home!

[peacetalksforall]

151. Not everybody should quit flying. Common citizens should stop.

Let them fill the flights with wall street types, ceos, the elite.

There wouldn't be any diaper problems because they would all be exempt from the pat downs that common citizens have to go through.

This administration is as much responsible for the ridiculous anti-poeple flying as the neo-con originators.

I'm so glad I don't have to fly anymore. I never thought I would say that. I flew many places and even commuted. I was always in the air for my job.

Yes, I repeat, this administration is equally to blame. I know some people will be angry with me saying that. We can't be ostriches.

Logic:

If this excess was originated by the neo-con leaders.
And it is continued and expanded by the Democratic leaders.
Then the Democratic leaders must be neo-cons.

[Hubert Flottz]

214. Your Logic seems sound to me.

The terrorists have won. The country is turning into a paranoid POS!

[formernaderite]

286. insanity rules...

same, my mother is 89 and lives with my sister. Although she's very mobile, I'd hate to have her embarrassed like that. Where has common sense gone?

[pnwmom]

293. Wouldn't your mother have been embarrassed by

having to sit next to a stranger on a plane, while wearing a smelly, soiled diaper for several hours? Wouldn't your mother rather have a family member change her dirty diaper BEFORE she gets on the plane? (Remember, no family member would be traveling with her, and so there won't be anyone to help her on the plane.)

[spooked911]

412. we don't know what the daughter's plans were after getting the mom through security

come on, you're jumping to a lot of conclusions here, and not nice ones

[delunapark]

5. Nazies

n/t

[customerserviceguy]

11. Nazies and pervs. n/t

[Vinca]

6. What the hell has happened to common sense?

Unless the lady was wearing a vest with dynamite and lighting a match, there could not possibly have been one thing suspicious about her. This country has become infested with idiots.

[awoke_in_2003]

53. "Idiocracy" initially made me laugh...

until I thought about it a bit. We aren't too far off from "Welcome to Costco, I love you".

[GOTV]

228. You can't just search the suspicious. If you think frail 95 year old women can't ...

... be offered enough money to smuggle something through security knowing she will never be searched, you're wrong. It's not like they think the 95 year old woman is going to try to take over the plane herself.

It's the same principle when they search toddlers and babies.

If the rule is "we never search X" then terrorists will look for an X to smuggle their weapons in.

This is not to say that I think all the searching is making us safe. I think they should stop the searches.

[pnwmom]

258. And, if you're going to think like a terrorist bomber,

who better than a dying person to carry a bomb?

[pnwmom]

294. That's what I want to know. Why would any daughter

want to put her mother on a plane with a soiled diaper? And get mad at the TSA when someone asks her to change it? Do you really think that it was okay for the daughter to want to put her dying
mother on a long flight, alone, with a dirty diaper, no spares, and no one to help her?

I think the problem is that too few people here have ever actually cared for a sick, elderly person. Otherwise they'd understand how important it is to change soiled diapers ASAP.

[cliffordu]

7. Bin Laden won.

My fucking god. When did we become a nation of cowards?

I might throw up. Seriously.

[awoke_in_2003]

54. It has been a slow...

30 year long process.

[otohara]

8. I Wear A Brace, Which Means....I Get Special Treatment

because I refuse to take it off and they are okay with that, but it requires that I always get a pat down and scanned brace.

I've always been treated with respect by the TSA'ers....

This is disgusting however - what on earth were they thinking?

[Gormy Cuss]

63. How did you find out that it would happen every time?

I'm curious because I have two friends who encountered the wheelchair special treatment for their elder relatives and both said that had they known before hand they would have made better arrangements for the comfort of the relative while going through security, such as bringing along another person to help lift the individual out of the chair for the hand screening as opposed to having the TSA screener demand that the passenger stand up on his own accord.


eta: one would think that from a P.R. point of view it would be in the best interest of the airlines and the TSA to warn EVERY passenger that certain medical equipment will always put the person into the extra screening category.

[roguevalley]

108. my sister and a friend both have to remove their prosthetic legs.

[Gormy Cuss]

157. Did they find this out at the airport or beforehand?

That's what I'm trying to figure out. It would make sense to warn people well in advance for obvious categories like prosthetics and wheelchairs but it doesn't seem to be the policy -- as I wrote above, if that's true it's just dumb from a PR point of view.

[AnneD]

206. How about TSA...

Using common sense. They should be disbanded. They have never stopped a terrorist yet. Passangers have done a better job. These sheeple that think this is ok or makes them feel save are only fooling themselves.

[jberryhill]

301. "such as bringing along another person"

You know the airports provide people for this, yes?

[Gormy Cuss]

437. I know that in one instance no assistance was offered.

So while airports may provide people for this, those staff aren't always available. The TSA worker just kept insisting that the passenger had to stand up out of the wheelchair for inspection.

[PSPS]

9. The TSA has turned airports into lots of Abu Ghraibs -- for exactly the same reasons.

Intimidation, sexual groping and humiliation, the whole bit. The purpose is the same too -- subjugate and otherwise "break" the population.

[dixiegrrrrl]

13. Yep.

I see signs they are heading to public areas like shopping malls.
Wonder how much of this crap people are willing to stand in line for?

[HysteryDiagnosis]

14. Power = heroin. n/t

[chervilant]

212. Really?

In that case, I can assure you that I don't have to go to a mall EVER again, and the presence of the TSA ANYWHERE will put that location on my "no fly zone."

[whathehell]

25. I don't think that's it....After all, most people,

this 95 year old woman, for instance, aren't "obligated" to fly.

[seabeyond]

45. my husband has to fly to toronto and wants me to go. my in laws have family gatherings

somewhere different yearly, sometimes out of country and i say.... refuse to fly, as all the others are willing to give up rights, grope down kids, porn scans and grannies diapers.

people have to fly for business.

what does an employee say to the employer that tells them they have to go? my husband say no.... i dont want to give money to this violation of rights?

"aren't "obligated" to fly."

easy pat answer, like, freedom is not free, guns dont kill people, people kill people, either with us or against us.

leaves out reason, shut up and do, dont oppose.

[whathehell]

68. Et tu, Seaybeyond?

Where is everyone getttin the idea that I'm in sympathy with the TSA?

I'm certainly NOT, and if you check the thread, you'll

see that I "scolded" another here who made light of the

situation, and I did it twice.

My only disagreement with the one poster was

in his conclusion that these obnoxious security

measures were part of a "conspiracy".

I fly fairly often and so does my husband, for business.

Neither of us has had a "pat down" yet and I've only been

at the "big black box" once, after being assured that the

level of radiation was actually low.

I don't know HOW I'm going to feel if I have to do it

again, and I don't want a pat down,

and yes, I agree with you all that this is a big issue.

He hasn't had a patdown yet

[seabeyond]

71. gracias... see

we are trilingual. lol

i was confused. surprised. when i saw your post. i get it now.

[whathehell]

75. Molim*

Now we can be "quadrilingual", lol.


*Croatian for "You're welcome".:hi:

[TheMadMonk]

120. These actions ARE a part of a FUCKING GREAT conspiracy.

The same conspiracy which used "Stanford Prison Experiment" style psychology to create the abuses of Abu Grahib; The Afghanistan "Kill Teams"; Blackwater; Enhanced interogation; and TSA dicks doing the same things over and over again at new locations.

No one gives orders that these things be done. They simply demand results and subordinates are left entirely up to their own devices to achieve those results. Rinse and repeat down the "command chain" until the only ones ever actually "responsible" are the Lindy Englands.

The negative outcomes and actions are absolutely foregone conclusions and entirely predictable.

Forknowledge of results and going forward = CONSPIRACY.

[whathehell]

193. You are certainly

entitled to your opinion.:hi:

[TheMadMonk]

197. Please take a close look at what went on in Abu Grahib.

With the "Kill Teams" in Afghanistan. The squad which went after a 14 YO girl and killed her and her family to cover it up.

Guantanamo Bay.

What the Serbs, Croats and Albanians got up to in that conflict.

The Watsui and Hutus in Rwanda.

The Teutonic Knights in the Baltic States of the 13th Century.

Nazi and Stasi. Stalin and Pol Pot.

RINSE AND FUCKING REPEAT, time and time and time again.

The worst abuses in war/conflict are far, far more likely to be committed as a result of DELIBERATE (ELL AYE CEE KAY) lack of oversight by superiors, than as a result of explicit and overt orders.

[awoke_in_2003]

55. And what happens when these tactics...

move to bus lines?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1341765

Guess if she doesn't own her own car she should just stay the fuck home, then :sarcasm:

[LisaL]

59. What is to stop TSA from searching people in cars next?

After all, TSA stands for transportation security administration, and cars are a form of transportation.

[awoke_in_2003]

61. Nothing...

only the people can stop this, but most of them are asleep. "Oh, that could never happen" they say.

[Riverman]

279. So are motorcycles, bicycles and skateboards!

Pull over kid, I need to inspect the trucks on that board and pull your pants up for the pat down!

[whathehell]

65. Ummm....A number of you are imagining that I lack sympathy for this woman

simply because I disagreed on it all being a "conspiracy"

on the order of Abu Gharib.

You are incorrect on that.:eyes:

As for the TSA and their pat downs

I'm sure I'll find out soon enough

as I'm taking a train from Chicago

To San Francisco this Saturday.

[awoke_in_2003]

66. We are "imagining" you lack of sympathy...

because of your choice of words.

"After all, most people, this 95 year old woman, for instance, aren't "obligated" to fly".

That statement ranks right up there with "why should you be worried if you aren't doing anything wrong". Too bad we can't harness the power of a rotating corpse, because I am sure that Jefferson is spinning at 1000 RPM.

on edit: forgot end quote

[whathehell]

69. Then you are imagining WRONG...Read my two posts

to Pwnmom.

SO sorry for the "choice of words".

I only meant them as as a counter to the idea that

pat downs are necessarily part of an

Abu Gharib-like conspiracy.

Calm the fuck down, will ya?

[awoke_in_2003]

70. Well, I was calm...

until you told me to "calm the fuck down", ya' jackwagon.

[whathehell]

74. No problem

jackwagon...:rofl:

I love that commercial.

[awoke_in_2003]

79. So do I...

glad you got my reference :hi:

[whathehell]

192. You betcha...

:hi:

[Aerows]

81. Jackwagon

I love that story :D

:rofl:

[blueamy66]

307. I've read your post 5 times and

I still don't understand anything you've written.

[GoneOffShore]

86. Ah, but the TSA wants to stop and search cars as well.

Documented elsewhere, so not posting a link.

The security state has arrived and it's stockholders, employees and cheerleaders pop up whenever it attracts critical attention.

And they'll tell you that there is no "right to travel" and that having the TSA put their hands down your pants is done out of "an abundance of caution" and that you should "think of the children". And that "Administrative searches" do not fall under the 4th Amendment, that the check point is a Constitution free zone and assorted other bullshit to prop up their increasingly shrill and repetitive arguments.

[awoke_in_2003]

87. yeah, I know...

security entities gain powers over time, they never lose them.

[scarletwoman]

57. No, she wasn't "obligated", she just wanted to see her family before she died.

Too bad for her, right?

[whathehell]

62. Oh hell, I didn't mean it that way...

The only thing thing I disagreed with was that it was a "conspiracacy"

type of thing.


Of course I'm angered at the woman's treatment,

and were I her or a

relative of hers I'd be outraged.

[scarletwoman]

101. Okay, I can see how that sentence could be taken two ways, and how I saw it

was not how you meant it.

I do disagree with you on your reading of the other poster's Abu Graibh(sp?) statement. It wasn't about a "conspiracy", it was pointing out recognizable authoritarian techniques.

sw

[onpatrol98]

251. lol.......

:rofl:

Wow...you have suffered a lot for that original post.

[MadMaddie]

90. There are various modes but in her condition flying was probably

the easiest and shortest way to do it.

America is about having good choices and the TSA is making it so difficult and so invasive that Americans do not want to fly. What they did to this woman amounts to assault, they had no real probable cause, they did it because they wanted to.

[jberryhill]

234. Or....

They did it because a non-ticketed person wanted to put an invalid aboard a flight that they weren't taking themselves.

Yeah, no yellow flag there.

[roguevalley]

109. I am obligated if I want to leave Alaska decently. That woman

has the right to fly without being strip searched in an airport while dying of leukemia. there is no excuse to be made for this. none.

[whathehell]

196. Of course you are and I'm not disagreeing with that...

I've answered this five times already.

What part of "I am IN SYMPATHY with this woman and I think it was

a horrible and humiliating event that shouldn't

have happened" are you not getting?

Please read my responses to Seabeyond, Pwnmom

and Awoke in 2003....If you can't do that

I can't be bothered with a sixth..:banghead:

[pnwmom]

329. The woman wasn't strip searched. Why don't you stick to the facts?

After a pat-down revealed a "firm" diaper, her daughter was asked to take her into the bathroom by herself and help her change her diaper. So the TSA could do their job and the woman would be a lot more comfortable for the long flight ahead of her.

BFD.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

132. Are you aware that not all places in this world can be reached

by dry land. A very ill person..and people going for certain surgical operations in other parts of the US have no choice but to fly.....and they are the very people to get victimised.

But as long as YOU feel safe, we shouldn't give a shit!

[whathehell]

195. No shit, sherlock

Asked and answered.

[pnwmom]

259. How is it being victimized for someone to ask your daughter

to change your soiled diaper? Wouldn't she have been more victimized if she'd been deliberately put on the plane for a long flight -- unaccompanied, as was the plan -- with a full diaper, no spares, and no one to help her?

[Boudica the Lyoness]

408. You need to mind your own business.

It is NONE of your business what is going on with another persons bodily functions or whether or not their underwear is clean. In your nasty imagination, this poor lady just took a massive shit in her depends and was balanced on top of a foot of fresh smelly shit. But people who wear these garments have little accidents or leaks and not massive dumps like a baby would have. One depends diaper could probably last her several days... because you see, she uses the bathroom most of the time.

When you get older you will understand. In the meantime...MIND YOUR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS.

[spooked911]

414. I agree

that person has no clue or no sympathy

[pnwmom]

10. At least the woman got her soiled diaper removed.

:shrug:

Otherwise she would have been sitting on the whole flight from Florida to Michigan in a dirty diaper, since her daughter hadn't brought along a spare.

[Ichingcarpenter]

12. Disgusting and a Red Herring

You don't know when or what reason she soiled herself, the age of the daughter, who might well be in her seventies and been not thinking clearly but go ahead

divert attention from the original issue

[pnwmom]

15. I know that a terminally ill 95 year old who needs diapers

should never be traveling without spares; that there are any number of reasons she might have soiled her diaper before or during the flight; and that she was lucky that she didn't have to sit through a long flight in the soiled diaper.

And yes, I agree, that would be disgusting.

[Ichingcarpenter]

16. Red herring

but keep it up.

[pnwmom]

17. It's not a red herring. It's an irony.

The irony is that this particular woman may have benefited from the attention from the TSA, since they prompted her daughter to remove the dirty diaper.

Five or six hours in a dirty diaper would have been hell.

[LisaL]

19. Are you freaking kidding?

How low can we go?

[woo me with science]

24. So are you saying you support the TSA crotch search policy

on the grounds that it will help the government identify grandmas whose daughters may not be changing their diapers often enough?

:eyes:

[pnwmom]

29. No, I said it was ironical.

I do support the pat-downs combined with scanning because I don't see a better way of preventing terrorist attacks on planes. I think all the scanners should be the safer, radio-wave type; and I don't support Israeli style racial/religious/behavioral screening.

[LisaL]

35. Do explain this:

TSA is searching this 95 year old woman presumably because they suspect the woman could be hiding something (in her diaper?). And yet they ask the daughter to take the woman to the bathroom in order to remove the diaper. How does that make any sense? The whole thing is ludicrous beyond belief. Is that a proper procedure for TSA, to ask a relative to take a person they are searching into the bathroom?

[pnwmom]

41. Do you need this spelled out?

The pat down search is to look for objects that aren't part of the body. When they did the search, they felt "contents" in the diaper. If the diaper had been CLEAN this wouldn't have happened. So they asked for the daughter to change her into a clean diaper -- which, ironically, was a good thing for this poor woman.

[LisaL]

47. I think you are the one who needs this spelled out.

TSA asked the daughter to remove her mother's diaper so they could complete the search.
Get a clue.

[pnwmom]

133. They couldn't complete the search because they could feel something in the diaper.

That's why they needed her to put on a clean one.

[LisaL]

139. How does this make any sense?

If they think there was something in a diaper, why are they asking a relative to remove it in a restroom? Does it suggest they believed something dangerous was hidden in that diaper?

[pnwmom]

140. The reason for the pat-downs is to detect non-body objects

under clothing.

No one asked them what they "thought" was in her diaper. They just followed procedure, and the procedure was designed to take human thinking -- and BIAS -- out of the equation.

Israel has chosen to go in the completely opposite direction -- to use racial, religious, and behavioral profiling -- to make bias the center of the equation. Is that what you'd prefer?

[LisaL]

144. What procedure would that be?

Do they really have a procedure upon which they can demand diaper removal?

[pnwmom]

146. Yes, they do.

When people don't pass their racial or religious or behavioral profiling, those people can be taken into a private room and stripped completely.

[LisaL]

147. I am talking about TSA.

Under which procedure can they demand diaper removal? In fact they claim they do not. So how exactly can TSA claim that they followed proper procedures in this case?
"The TSA said in a statement to Fox News that at "no instance" would an officer ask a passenger to remove an adult diaper."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/06/26/dying-woman-undergoes-additional-tsa-security-screening-says-family/#ixzz1QRtsV8Xq

[pnwmom]

150. Interesting.

Then the 95 year old was lucky they didn't follow policy -- she would have to sit in poop for 5 or 6 hours if they hadn't spoken up.

[LisaL]

152. Oh give me a break.

Unbelievable. Considering the woman didn't get a new diaper, why pretend that TSA somehow improved her situation?

[pnwmom]

153. Sitting in clean clothing, even without a diaper, is better than sitting

in a soiled diaper for several hours.

They didn't have a clean diaper with them for some reason, but if they were reasonably intelligent and thoughtful, they would have been able to come up with some solution -- even if they had to tape together a couple baby diapers from the airport store.

ANYTHING would be better than leaving her sitting in a soiled diaper for several hours.

[LisaL]

154. Well let me ask you something really simple.

How long do you think that clothing is going to stay clean?
By the way, explain something else to me. If TSA procedures don't allow to demand diaper removal, why are they defending this as "proper?"

[pnwmom]

155. Did you read my whole post?

They should have jury-rigged something to take care of her problem, even if it meant taping a couple baby diapers together. You don't leave a helpless person sitting in soiled diapers for 5 hours -- you do SOMETHING.

[LisaL]

156. TSA shouldn't be asking anyone to remove diapers.

They admit it is not their policy.
And yet they defend this as proper. So, I want to know, what gives?

[pnwmom]

166. Apparently it isn't their policy.

So maybe they got human. (It happens, sometimes.) And the human thing would be to point out to the daughter that the 95 year old needed a diaper change.

[Bonobo]

160. Why are you changing the subject so much and why is anyone going along with you? nt

[pnwmom]

167. Apparently I'm not the only one here

who has cared for an elderly person whose health required frequent diaper changes.

[Bonobo]

169. Why don't you start an OP on it? I agree it is important.

But this OP is about TSA abuse and it seems a red herring to avoid the relevant issue.

[pnwmom]

170. What difference does it make whether I talk about it here or somewhere else?

No one needs to reply to anything I say.

[Bonobo]

174. Good point, so let me post my opinion that it has nothing to do with the issue here. nt

[sabrina 1]

339. So, our heroes think sick great-grandma might have a bomb in her diaper,

However, apparently it's too icky for them to remove themselves. Yuck! Say our heroes!

What to do?? Okay, think fast! What are our priorities?? Save lives or avoid handling a dirty diaper?? Brilliant solution! Let her 'accomplice' take her out of their sight where, presumably, she is now free to explode the imaginary bomb without any interference at all blowing up the entire airport!

Airline Security at its finest!

Clearly, unless they are the stupidest people on the face of the planet, they knew full well this woman was no threat to anyone. Either that, or they endangered the lives of everyone in the airport. Take your pick.

[SDuderstadt]

340. They had no idea what was in the diaper...

and you have no idea what algorithm they are employing to design their search criteria.

I've asked before and I would still love to see your design, Sabrina.

[sabrina 1]

347. Do you realize what you just said?

So, not knowing if she had a bomb in her diaper or not, according to you, they send her and her 'accomplice' off alone, with no supervision where they could have blown up the entire airport??

This is what you call security??

Why am I not surprised!

Utter insanity, all of it. Hopefully sooner rather than later the adults will take over this country.

[SDuderstadt]

348. So, you admit she could have had a bomb in...

her diaper, Sabrina?

Now which way are you going to turn?

[sabrina 1]

353. Waste of time I know.

But, trying again.

Why would the TSA allow someone with a bomb in their diaper go off with their 'accomplice' unsupervised where they could have blown up the whole airport??

Think hard! The answer is quite simple!

[pnwmom]

384. They have to follow the procedure -- not act on hunches

on who looks guilty or not.

Would you prefer Israeli-type "behavioral screening"?

Like this?



http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/barcelona...

Two leaders of Barcelona's gay community claim that they were subjected to a humiliating security check at Israel's Ben Gurion Airport, while trying to leave the country after participating in last week's Tel Aviv gay pride parade.

The conduct of security at the airport has set off a firestorm with the Foreign Ministry, which had extended an official invitation to the pair to participate in Israel's gay pride activities.

David Marti, the general manager for gay pride events in Barcelona, told Haaretz that airport security had stripped his boyfriend whom he was traveling with. The pair were asked a series of personal questions, which Marti said exceeded reasonable limits. The men's personal items were also thoroughly searched.

Marti said the pair was questioned for a long time, with their security check ending just minutes before their plane took off. Marti and his partner managed to make it to their flight at the last minute.

SNIP

[Rex]

420. As you can clearly see, the adults are all children trying desperately

to act like adults...even if they have no idea what it means to be responsible or to be mature in an obvious situation.

[spooked911]

416. yes, dude, the sick old lady WAS A TERRORIST!!!!!!!

if that's the case, we're pretty much all screwed.

[SDuderstadt]

423. Are you really claiming that elderly people or...

even people in wheelchairs have not been used in terrorist attacks, Spooked?

[spooked911]

430. NO

but I'm saying if that the terrorists get someone like that to be a suicide bomber here, we're totally screwed. But it's not going to happen and this is all BS.

[SDuderstadt]

431. "but, it's not going to happen"

WTF?

[spooked911]

432. you think al Qaeda is going to recruit old sick American ladies to be bombers?

and you think I am the crazy one?

[SDuderstadt]

433. Show me where I said you were crazy, Spooked...

after you fail at this, tell me why you think something that has already occurred elsewhere, could not occur here. Your personal incredulity does not count.

This should be good.

[spooked911]

434. I'm not going to waste my time going through old posts in the September 11th section

-- while you may not specifically said "you are crazy", there is little doubt that you thought that about me for mini-nukes and no-planes.

And I re-iterate, al Qaeda -- to the extent they even exist as a real entity-- is not going to be able to recruit some sick old American lady to be a suicide bomber by having her wear a PTEN loaded diaper. Christ, is that so hard to understand?

And further-- if somehow a sick old American lady becomes a suicide bomber in this way, we have far more problems than airplane security.

This should be obvious.

[SDuderstadt]

436. Dude...

you can search your entire life and you will never find a post in which I have called you "crazy" and this is nothing but a cheap shot from you. Beyond that, no one is interested in your psychic musings.

Do you really need proof that al Qaeda exists an "entity", Spooked? How much fucking proof do you need?? And, it's PETN, not PTEN. And, no one said the elderly woman would need to "recruited", dude. Again, your personal incredulity counts for very little.

[spooked911]

438. Funny. Good to know then that you think there is nothing crazy about no planes and

mini-nukes at the WTC.

:)


As far as al Qaeda, it is obviously more of a propaganda term than a real terrorist org. To the extent that al Qaeda exists, it is controlled by intel agencies.

And if the woman wasn't recruited, how exactly do they get the explosive in her diaper?

[SDuderstadt]

439. Dude...

you need to figure out the difference between thinking something is crazy versus thinking someone is crazy.

"to the extent that so Qaeda exists, it is controlled by Intel agencies".

LOL!,

As far as your last question, why don't you ask al Qaeda? That is, if they even exist. If your can't find them, check with an "intel agency".

Too funny.

[spooked911]

440. No

I would like your answer to the last question. Thank you.

[SDuderstadt]

441. Dude...

What makes you believe she has to be recruited?

[spooked911]

442. how else will they get a significant quantity

of PETN in her diaper, as I said before.

[SDuderstadt]

443. Dude...

why would it have to be in her diaper and how do you know how much PETN it takes?

[spooked911]

444. Whatever, dude

All I can say at this point is that I hope you have to go through a similar experience as the people in the OP and let's see how you feel about it.

[Desertrose]

72. Umm...doesn't logic dictate the the TSA should go with....I mean

gee...if there was something "dangerous" in the diaper, the daughter could get rid of the "danger"..maybe take out the whole airport- which btw is a much bigger target than one airplane. My god, how about some common sense people?

The fact that this is being discussed on a freaking message board tells me how far over the top this whole "TSA is only concerned for our safety" BS has truly gone.

Why in god's name would a 95 y.o. terminally ill woman traveling with her (most likely) older daughter even be a suspect?? Are we that paranoid?

To even consider defending the TSA on this is mind blowing.

[sabrina 1]

343. Amazing, isn't it?? People defending

something that was, in fact, totally irresponsible IF they truly believed this woman actually was a threat. The TSA Sent her off with her 'accomplice', free to blow up the entire airport!!

I wonder sometimes what they really are defending. Because it sure isn't security. :eyes:

[Rex]

422. We threw out logic and embraced insanity in 2000 and 2001.

Now...look how far we have fallen, the Founding Fathers would be outraged if they understood how much their 'free' country is now being run like a police state.

[Habitual Candor]

95. Obtuse or Oblivious

So how long have you worked for the TSA?

You support pat downs by the TSA and the treatment of this woman. Exactly how many terrorist plots have been thwarted by TSA screening procedures? I guess people with a god complex get special treatment in the TSA hiring process.

The window of opportunity to shutdown Homeland Security and the TSA is rapidly closing. It is bought and paid for by the suppliers making the equipment and supplying the workers. If it does not end under the current administration then it never will. It only gets worse from here on out. You don't think any high speed rail will include TSA screening? Sporting Events? Malls? any venue where large crowds congregate.

The FUD machine is at full throttle.

[roguevalley]

111. this is revolting. there was nothing about that woman that fit

a profile, needed more than a cursory search or required this vile treatment. honest. to. god. Unbelievable.

[pnwmom]

134. If we start traveling down the road of "profiling" then

we'll end up with the Israeli style racial/religious/"behavioral" profiling. Is that where you want to go?

[RainFromAbove]

135. profile?

Well, that's rather the point, isn't it? There aren't any profiles. The TSA says as much.

[pnwmom]

300. Welcome to DU, RainFromAbove.

And you're right -- we don't use profiling here, for some very good reasons.

[jberryhill]

236. Then try this....

Unticketed person with an invalid, who was dressed and prepared by the unticketed person, insists on accompanying invalid to the gate instead of using airport special services, and made no provision for the invalid to have a change of undergarments, which needed changing.

There's a profile there.

[scarletwoman]

36. Finally. "I do support the pat-downs combined with scanning..."

So rather than enter into the actually relevant discussion about security vs. freedom with those who DON'T support the actions of the TSA, you keep bringing up granny's dirty diaper.

[pnwmom]

38. I've entered into countless other discussions about airport security.

In this particular case, I'm more concerned about the granny's diaper. Sorry.

[LisaL]

48. You should be sorry.

Because this is ridiculous.

[October]

77. +1 really. /nt

[rhett o rick]

98. I can't believe your lack of empathy. nm

[OnyxCollie]

247. I can.

It's not like she hides her authoritarianism.

And since it's done under a Democratic administration, her views are "protected."

[Ignis]

296. +1

:puke:

[pnwmom]

388. Where's your empathy for the 95 year old who was supposed

to be sitting in a dirty diaper for 6 hours, if the daughter had had her way? With no clean diaper to change into and no one to help her do it anyway?

[liberation]

113. That word, Irony, does not mean what you think it does...

[Dawson Leery]

56. Red Herring indeed.

Authoritarians are indeed bi-partisan.

[GoneOffShore]

89. A hit, a palpable hit.

[OnyxCollie]

246. Ding! Ding! Ding!

Check my sig line.

[scarletwoman]

20. You REALLY REALLY don't want to examine the real issue, which is the loss of ALL our freedoms in

this National Security State.

Why are you working so hard, in TWO threads, to deflect the discussion away from the question of why should we put up with this organized assault on our freedom and dignity?

[pnwmom]

23. This isn't hard work, I assure you. n/t

[scarletwoman]

34. No, I suppose it wouldn't be after lots of practice.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

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

[sabrina 1]

341. I got it. The TSA found a granny with a dirty diaper!!

Finally, a justification for the total destruction of our constitutional rights!!!

Omg, why didn't we all see this before!! THIS is what you've been working so hard to try to tell us. One granny in a dirty diaper! No more Constitutional Rights!

How can we thank you? :eyes:

[whathehell]

28. As I told her, she may feel differently when it's she or a loved who is in that position.

:eyes:

[pnwmom]

31. And those who are dismissing the discomfort of a 95 year old in a soiled diaper

might feel differently when they or a relative is in that position.

I've taken care of a 95 year old and I know how critical skin care is.

[LisaL]

33. So is TSA now in the business of skin care?

I didn't realize their purpose has changed. Are they examining all passengers for the purpose of verifying that these passengers have clean undergarments?
:eyes:

[pnwmom]

42. No, that is what is ironical.

Without ever intending to benefit the woman at all, they inadvertently arranged things so that this woman was more comfortable for her long subsequent flight than she otherwise would have been.

[LisaL]

46. It is amazing to watch someone to twist and turn so to make this

into a good thing. Simply amazing.

[pipi_k]

51. OK I'm going to attempt to explain how a bad thing

can have have good consequences...

In 1995 my daughter was involved in a head-on crash and taken to the hospital where they did all sorts of tests and scans and things to make sure there was no internal damage.

That's when we found out she only has one kidney.

Knowing that, she has the information she needs to try her best to keep that one kidney healthy.

Without that accident, we might never have known.

That is how a bad thing can lead to something good. Or, at the very least, something of benefit.

One doesn't have to twist and turn to understand that point.

[roguevalley]

115. no. and by the way, I am damned glad for you and your daughter.

but your daughter didn't have a quasi-police force looking in her pants. Hug your daughter for me. I am truly glad for her to find out that news.

[pnwmom]

123. The "quasi-police force" is helping to make sure that

we don't have any more terrorist attacks on planes. It doesn't matter how many peace treaties we might sign -- there will always be individuals seeking to make a violent, dramatic statement. And this makes it more difficult for them.

(One of my children has had extensive medical testing. The "groping" done by the TSA really is relatively minor, in the broad scheme of things.)

[LisaL]

148. And in this particular case the elderly woman ended up

without any diaper on. How exactly did that improve her situation?

[pipi_k]

229. My suggestion...

To feel firsthand how it would improve her situation, go out and get a depends.

Piss in it a couple of times and sit in your own piss for an hour or two.

See, in order for that TSA agent to have felt "something hard", there had to be a whole LOT of piss in that diaper. The whole thing turns into one big gel-pack when it's full of piss...right up the front and back.


So, really...in order to understand how getting rid of it would improve her situation, sit in a piss-filled diaper for a couple of hours.

[October]

78. It's not you. They're coming out of the woodwork today.

/nt

[LanternWaste]

67. Unless of course it was the treatment and attention by the TSA...

Unless of course it was the treatment and attention by the TSA itself that was the cause of soiled diaper.


But I do realize we all interpret things in such a way as to better rationalize and justify our world-views... :shrug:

[pnwmom]

124. Do you understand the meaning of the word ironic?

I'm not implying that this was a necessary or usual effect of the TSA screening -- in fact, the opposite. It is IRONIC that this screening ended up with the unintended consequence of making the woman more comfortable for her flight.

Yes, it is possible that the screening made her soil her diaper -- but so could turbulence, something she ate, etc. She should have been traveling with some spares.

[LisaL]

142. How was she more comfortable? She didn't get a new diaper.

So WTF makes you claim TSA made her more comfortable?

[pnwmom]

176. Clean sweat pants would be more comfortable than a dirty diaper.

And the picture shows that's what she was wearing. Even if she had to wait till they boarded, the daughter could have obtained something to put inside the sweat pants to substitute for the "wet and firm" diaper. Even if she had to sacrifice some of her own clothing from her carry-on bag. (Though I bet flight attendants carry spare baby diapers on board.)

You do realize what happens when a diaper gets too full, don't you? If that diaper was, according to the daughter, already wet and firm, how was it supposed to last for another 5 or 6 hours?

[LisaL]

178. The daughter started crying, TSA decided to search her.

The daughter ended up missing her flight. The mother flew alone.
So how do you think the mother lasted however many hours without any undergarments on?

[pnwmom]

187. Where did you read that the mother had to fly alone?

It wasn't in the CNN article that you linked to or in the OP. Just because the daughter had them whisk the mother to the gate doesn't mean they didn't hold the plane a few minutes for the daughter to finish security.

But if what you speculate did happen, if the mother then ruined her sweat pants, too, why did the daughter leave out that part of the evil-TSA tale?

I think the daughter cried because she was tired and stressed and she didn't want to deal with the dirty diaper. Honestly -- who would?

But -- as the CNN article says -- the mother remained calm; probably because she was relieved to get out of it.

[LisaL]

190. I didn't "speculate" anything. I already posted this link but

here it is again.
"Her mother managed to make it to the plane on time, but Weber was then held up as agents tested everything in her purse and on her body, and missed the departure. She said she was not sure if she would ever see her mother again alive."
http://www.timeslive.co.za/world/2011/06/27/elderly-woman-forced-to-remove-diaper-for-us-airport-security

[pnwmom]

191. You're right, she missed the departure. It turns out she never planned on taking the flight.

What she missed was getting to say her final goodbye to her mother at the gate, which IS sad.

On the other hand, to recap: this daughter was upset because she had to change her mother's soiled diaper before she would be allowed on the plane. She wanted to put her mother on the plane wearing that soiled diaper -- without any spare diapers to change into and without any family member to help her. Who was supposed to help this dying woman if she ran into trouble during the long plane flight? Was an attendant supposed to deal with the dirty diaper? Was the stranger sitting next to her on the plane supposed to be responsible?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/06/26/dying-woman-undergoes-additional-tsa-security-screening-says-family/

Lena Reppert, 95, was to say her final goodbyes to her daughter before she made what would most likely be her last flight to her native Michigan. After eight years of battling leukemia, doctors say she doesn’t have much time to live.

SNIP

Weber said the emotional toll was too much. From perhaps seeing her mother for what could be the last time, to having to see her mother go through all the security measures, “I just cried and said, ‘Please can you let her through, she’s just so sick,” she said.

The TSA said in a statement to Fox News that at "no instance" would an officer ask a passenger to remove an adult diaper. The TSA would not disclose further information about this particular passenger, but said all protocols were followed.

“While every person and item must be screened before entering the secure boarding area, TSA works with passengers to resolve security alarms in a respectful and sensitive manner," the statement read. "We have reviewed the circumstances involving this screening and determined that our officers acted professionally and according to proper procedure.”


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/06/26/dying-woman-undergoes-additional-tsa-security-screening-says-family/#ixzz1QSl1GHuA

[jberryhill]

216. You hit on what, to me, seems a key point

We're hearing the daughter's story.

It seems to me that if the TSA noticed that the briefs needed to be changed, then asking the daughter to change them is a reasonable thing to do.

What's so insane about that?

[Bonobo]

224. For one thing, it is unsupported by evidence so it's just conjecture on your part. nt

[jberryhill]

226. What is unsupported by evidence?

The diaper needed changing. That's why the gel swells up and hardens. That fact does not seem to be in dispute.

So, what should anyone, TSA or not, do upon making that observation?

Say, "Okay, put her on the plane."

[pnwmom]

256. Right. And the TSA can't speak out now because of privacy issues,

even if they had a good reason for asking for the diaper change.

The outrage here is pretty amazing. All these people who apparently want to argue that elder-neglect is some sort of constitutional right. If I'd been that daughter, I'd have been grateful that someone had pointed out the problem so I could fix it before putting her on the plane. . . . and if I'd forgotten spares, I'd be blaming myself, not the TSA or the airlines.

[sabrina 1]

346. The daughter's story hasn't changed. The TSA has changed

their story AGAIN today! So I'll go with the daughter. The truth usually doesn't need to change.

How would the TSA know that someone's underwear needed to be changed unless they were groping that person, inappriately?

Is this the America you want to live in? Where total strangers, government agents in uniform, are waiting for you at the airport free to molest you, and it is molestation and has been described as such in at least two pieces of legislation pending regarding these practices, and if you refuse, threaten you with arrest and/or fines??

And for what? Death by terror is probably one of the most miniscule threats to our safety. Are you prepared to give up all your rights to try to stay safe from such a small threat?

And btw, will all this probing and molesting, of children also, stop an ordinary plane crash?? How do we feel safe from plane crashes??

And if this Grandmother and her daughter were viewed as a threat, possible suicide bombers, why did the TSA send them off alone where they could have blown up the whole airport??

Do you REALLY think this is about security? If so, I have a Bridge to sell you.

I have a feeling that old saying will be changed in the future to 'if you believe that, I have a Rapiscan and an enhanced pat-down to sell you'.

[pnwmom]

383. The daughter's story has changed multiple times.

Even in the same interview.

Yesterday she said she had been ordered to remove the diaper. Then, when the TSA denied that today, she said she hadn't been required to. And then -- well, you'll see.


http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/06/27/florida.tsa.incident/index.html?iref=storysearch

"While every person and item must be screened before entering the secure boarding area, TSA works with passengers to resolve security alarms in a respectful and sensitive manner," the agency said Sunday night in a statement. "We have reviewed the circumstances involving this screening and determined that our officers acted professionally, according to proper procedure and did not require this passenger to remove an adult diaper."

A response released earlier Sunday by the TSA said that the agency had reviewed the circumstances "and determined that our officers acted professionally and according to proper procedure."

The woman's daughter, Jean Weber, told CNN on Monday that the TSA agents acted professionally and never ordered the removal of her mother's diaper. However, Weber said the agents made it clear that her mother could not board the plane unless they were able to inspect the diaper.

According to Weber, it was her idea to remove the diaper so it could be inspected and they could make their flight.

SNIP

[Bonobo]

391. So they demanded that this elderly woman's diaper be inspected.

That's the whole story right there.

Either you think that is okay or you don't.

There is no middle ground.

I will proudly stand up and say that there should be a line drawn somewhere and inspecting an elderly woman's diaper is (actually too far but) a good one to draw.

So you have come out and said, in not so many words, that you are an advocate for elderly people's diapers being inspected before being allowed to board an airplane.

That's it.

Nothing more to discuss other than your red herring arguments.

[pnwmom]

393. No, she said they did not demand this.

But you apparently are an advocate of adult children who insist on their right to put their mothers, wearing soiled diapers, on a long plane flights without clean diapers or anyone to help them.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/06/27/florida.tsa.incide...


The woman's daughter, Jean Weber, told CNN on Monday that the TSA agents acted professionally and never ordered the removal of her mother's diaper.

[jberryhill]

248. What flight did the daughter miss?

[polly7]

324. ...

[pipi_k]

231. See my reply above

about trying this on your own.

Sit in a pissy depends for a couple of hours. I dare you to claim that getting rid of it won't make you feel better.

[roguevalley]

114. given that she was singled out to have this vile thing done to her

I don't think she can be comforted. there is also that little thing of terminal leukemia. so much for dignity and don't throw her daughter in my face. her daughter was doing her best.

[pnwmom]

125. Unlike a lot of people here,

I actually have recent experience with a 95 year old with a terminal disease who needed diapers. I can say with confidence that if she had to choose between a private TSA pat-down screening by a woman, as a result of which I was asked to change her soiled diaper -- or sitting on the airplane for 5 or 6 hours with a dirty one -- she'd have chosen the screening.

[roguevalley]

112. how sad.

[whathehell]

194. You believe this was about HER discomfort?

[pnwmom]

199. Only inadvertently.

The TSA screening had the accidental benefit of getting the daughter to remove her mother's soiled diaper, so she didn't have to sit in a dirty diaper for the next 5 or 6 hours -- with no one to help her, since the dying mother was flying by herself.

[roguevalley]

110. and what does this matter? Going a few hours on a plane with one

is sufficient. Getting frisked and losing it is the issue. Nothing else matters. That daughter was taking her dying mother to their family and probably was exhausted doing it. Been there, done that. Nothing that family did is up for debate. This is about the TSA only.

[pipi_k]

117. Actually it's not sufficient...

I certainly wouldn't want to sit in piss or shit for more than a few minutes.

and what if the plane gets stuck on the runway like so many others have been, for hours beyond what it should have been?


Do parents bring just one diaper for their babies, even if they're only running out for one hour with the kid? No bottle of milk?


The indignity of being searched in such a manner is bad enough.

But the added indignity of having NO alternate bladder/bowel protection for however many hours the flight and deboarding and travel took...well, that's really no better, is it? And it was indignity visited upon that woman by her own stupid family who didn't know or care enough to pack just ONE extra diaper for her.

Yes, granted...things like this should not happen. We should not be subjected to humiliation by strangers. But we should also not be humiliated by our own families.

Doesn't look like they cared enough to give a thought to poor Mom's comfort.

The only victim here is the elderly woman. Victimized by the TSA and her unconcerned family.

[blueamy66]

225. Have you ever cared for a terminally ill parent?

I have. And it sucks ass. It's a horrible experience, having to parent YOUR parent.

I can understand the daughter making a mistake. She probably had a bunch of stuff on her mind.

The TSA is comprised of HS drop outs and morons.

I liked it better back in the day....when the airline agents DID profile.

[pipi_k]

233. What's the difference between

a parent and an in-law?

I just wrote above about all the things I had to be responsible for when I cared for my terminally ill MIL in 2005.

People who have a lot on their minds need to do two things...

1. Ask for help from whomever will give it. If the patient is terminal, then that help can often come from Hospice.

2. Take five or ten minutes to think about what the person might need in case of (fill in the blanks) and then make a list so items aren't forgotten.


New parents all over the country manage to remember things like their babies' bottles and diapers and other supplies. And no doubt they have as much on their minds as someone caring for a terminal parent.

And that is the key right there. At that point, the goal is making the person comfortable. That means reviewing the ways and means for accomplishing that goal. Thinking ahead. "Hmmm...Mom wears Depends. She's going on a trip. The plane might be delayed. I'd better pack an extra Depends for her".

Pretty simple, IMO.

:shrug:

[pnwmom]

260. And then, when you make a mistake, you don't

blame the person who points it out to you. You're glad you have a chance to take care of things.

[blueamy66]

308. whatever

I've had to parent my parent.......terminally ill....call me when you go thru it

[pipi_k]

335. Yeah, whatever...

I would imagine Mr P would probably back me up on this one.

It was HIS terminally ill mom I cared for, and whom he had to watch die, day by day.

While he had his own health concerns to deal with.


He never forgot anything we had to do for his mom either.


If you want to do a halfway decent job of it, you stay organized by making/keeping lists.

Oh, and even though she wasn't my real mother, she was just like a mom to me. Caring doesn't depend on egg/sperm origins.

[blueamy66]

374. Who is Mr P?

My guy spent numerous days at the hospice home with my Dad.

He was the bomb. And I mean my Dad and my fiance. :-)

I don't want to argue...just want to say that caring for an invalid parent sux ass. I loved my
Dad soooo much...it was horrible to watch him fade away...but my fiance's help was inmeasurable..it that spelld correctly????

[blueamy66]

394. Yeah, cause my parents adopted me.....no sperm involved

Who the hell has time to make lists?

I was just worried about getting to the care home every day after work. As was my fiance that only knew my Dad for about 8 months. Who sat with him and talked about his kids and his grandkids and his wife, who died at 52. When I was only 21......and her death devastated me. I will never be the same.

Let's just call a truce. Nothing good can come of this..

[pipi_k]

400. And that goes to the first of my points...

If you don't have time for little things, you're doing too much and need help.

Did you know that caretakers often end up more ill than the people they're caring for? It's true.

People need to find ways to care for themselves as well as their "patients". I remember being very afraid of becoming sick myself while my MIL was here. It was winter/early spring, the worst time for sickness here. I knew how difficult I am when I'm sick, and I knew it would be hell trying to care for Mom if I were sick myself.

Well, when she came home from the nursing home after one month there, her final illness, the stress caught up to me and I got very sick with Bronchitis that lasted for a long time. By that time, though, we had help from hospice...otherwise I don't know what would have happened.

I'm so sorry about the loss of your mom. I do understand how awful that can be, and it's true that you will never be the same again. Each loss leaves an indelible mark on our hearts.

Truce.

:)

[blueamy66]

403. truce

nt

[pnwmom]

387. Okay, me, too.

So would you put her on a 5 hour flight, unattended, with no spare diaper and no one to change it anyway? And then complain to high heaven when some airport person told you you should change her soiled diaper before you put her alone on the plane?

[blueamy66]

378. Really?

Someone who gave birth to you and someone who gave birth to your beloved? You don't know the difference? I understand that in laws love their in law parents.......but it's not the same...sorry

[pnwmom]

262. Of course I can understand making a mistake.

But then you would want to fix that mistake, right? And get your mother into a clean diaper? You wouldn't really want to put her on a long flight with a full diaper, no spare, and no one to help her deal with problems. Would you?

[blueamy66]

376. I have to admit that I never had to deal with that.

nt

[pnwmom]

126. You can't possibly understand how delicate the skin of a 95 year old is --

It's as delicate as a newborn's. Going a few hours on a plane with a soiled diaper could result in bleeding sores. It's nothing to be blase about.

[LisaL]

141. She didn't get a new diaper since her daughter didn't have a spare.

So I presume she went on the plane wearing nothing at all. So there is no reason whatsoever to claim that TSA somehow improved her situation by demanding the removal of the diaper.

[pnwmom]

186. She was wearing stretch pants, which aren't "nothing at all."

And, in the unlikely event that the flight attendant couldn't provide the daughter with some absorbent material (or a couple of baby diapers) to place between her legs inside her pants, then the daughter should have gotten something to use from their carry-on bags.

[Bonobo]

161. Are you trying to derail a discussion of the TSA by making it a personal issue? nt

[pnwmom]

177. No, there have been countless threads about the TSA.

I am no threat to any of them.

[pipi_k]

221. And that's all it would take, too...

My 93 year old MIL got a sore on her foot one day that hadn't been there the day before.

It stayed there, weeping pus and blood and looking nasty till the day she died, no matter what we tried to do for it.

[pnwmom]

263. Yes, she could have easily wound up with a hideous bedsore.

Just from sitting in one position for more than a couple hours -- which she was bound to do. But sitting in one place in a full diaper? That almost would have guaranteed a bedsore.
I think there's a serious lack of education here.

[pipi_k]

26. True...at least there was that...

As outrageous as the whole incident was, I can't even fathom WHY the family wouldn't have a spare Depends with them.

Damn. That's either careless or just head-knockingly stupid.

When we had my MIL here in her last illness and she was still able to get around, I always had extra protection for her. Extra socks. Extra pads and Depends. Latex gloves. Etc.

Dumbasses.

[roguevalley]

116. they could have just forgot. My uncle and aunt came over to my

mom's old hometown for a family reunion and in the hubbub to come they forgot my aunt's oxygen bottle. you may think such things are hard but they aren't. if you knew my aunt and uncle you would have known them to be dedicated to the last comforts of the other. It happens. Someone on the thread wants to make a federal case about it. Too bad. That woman will now have in her memories of the last days of her life a fucking bunch of dipshits looking in her diaper. May that never happen to anyone else but if it does I hope someone on a list doesn't castigate their family for such INCREDIBLE DERELICTION OF DUTY or some such shit. Exhaustion is a real factor at this point for that daughter who OBVIOUSLY adores and loves her mom. Been there, done that.

[pipi_k]

119. Hmmm...let's see...

I had my MIL living here for five months before she died.

We had a checklist of things we needed to take whenever we left the house with her.

I had a bag filled with her supplies. Checked it frequently. Added to it when necessary.

I was tired, too. I had to bathe and feed her. Do the cooking and cleaning and laundry, make sure she got her meds and breathing treatments, and when she was still able to walk around, I had to constantly supervise her to make sure she didn't trip over something and kill herself.

When she became bedridden, the stress increased. I had a list of painkilling meds...when to give them and how much. I kept records of how much urine she passed into her cath bag.

Lists, lists, lists


If people care enough to make a list, then they don't "forget" important things.

[pnwmom]

130. And then those things become so routine,

that it's kind of shocking when they stop.

It was like "phantom limb" syndrome there for a while . . . I was so used to thinking about what my M.I.L. needed in every situation.

[pnwmom]

128. No one from TSA was looking into her diaper.

They felt something when they did the pat-down, so they asked the daughter to change it. Big deal. This 95 year old is used to having people change her diapers -- this wouldn't be a shocking thing for her. She was probably relieved, though, to get out of the dirty one.

[LisaL]

136. And that makes sense exactly how?

If they believed there was actually something hidden in the diaper, how does it make sense for them to ask a relative to take this woman into a restroom and remove that diaper?

[pnwmom]

143. As I said, they're not expected to have an opinion on what

is in the diaper, but to follow procedure.

If the daughter changes the diaper, and puts on a clean one, the mother can then pass the screening -- because there will be no solids inside the diaper for the TSA person to feel.

[LisaL]

149. TSA doesn't have a procedure upon which they can demand

a removal of a diaper. And the daughter didn't have a clean one. So the elderly woman ended up traveling without a diaper on, I presume.

[pnwmom]

168. I presume that the daughter, once alerted to the problem,

made up for her earlier mistake (not bringing along some spares) by finding SOMETHING she could use to keep her mother clean and comfortable on the long flight -- such as a couple of baby diapers found in the airport store.

It would be child neglect to purposely keep a baby in a poopy diaper that long, and it's no different when the dependent person is elderly.

[LisaL]

171. The daughter started crying. TSA then decided to pat the daughter

down. The plane was about to leave. So the daughter asked for the mother to be wheeled onto the plane by herself. So, no, I presume the daughter never got to use something that kept the mother clean and comfortable, because the daughter didn't even got onto the plane.
"Eventually, Weber said she asked for her mother to be whisked away to the boarding gate without her, because their plane was scheduled to leave in two minutes and Weber was still going through security."
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/26/florida.tsa.incident/

[pnwmom]

173. That's unfortunate. But the woman was still better off

out of the poopy diapers. I don't know what the daughter managed once she boarded the plane, but if it were me, I'd have managed something -- even if I had to pull out a t-shirt or cotton nightgown from my carry-on bag (to stuff inside the crotch of her stretch pants). ANYTHING would be better than remaining in the soiled diaper.

[LisaL]

175. Again, the daughter never made it onto the plane.

The mother flew alone.

"Her mother managed to make it to the plane on time, but Weber was then held up as agents tested everything in her purse and on her body, and missed the departure. She said she was not sure if she would ever see her mother again alive."
http://www.timeslive.co.za/world/2011/06/27/elderly-woman-forced-to-remove-diaper-for-us-airport-security

[SDuderstadt]

180. So, why didn't Weber....

have her mother take the later flight with her?

Another puzzle.

[LisaL]

182. Because she didn't want an eldrely sick woman to sit at the airport

for who knows for how long until the next flight? Is that so hard to figure out, really?

[SDuderstadt]

183. So, it was better to put her on a flight without her...

caregiver?

Please.

[LisaL]

184. And TSA thinks that a woman crying means she could be a

terrorist? Please.
:eyes:

[SDuderstadt]

185. Again...

that is Weber's account.

[Bonobo]

189. Yes, because the TSA account is so much more believable.

Why motivation would they possibly have for making themselves look justified in such disgusting behavior?

[pnwmom]

201. We are only hearing one side.

And that is from the daughter who wanted to put a dying 95 year old on a plane by herself, with a soiled diaper and no clean diaper to change into.

[jberryhill]

217. +1

I think you have this one figured out.

[Bonobo]

188. Ha, you're blaming the passenger for the airline's decision to fly the sick 95 yr. old woman alone?

Apparently there is no end to the flexibility some have in bending over backwards.

[pnwmom]

204. The daughter had ALWAYS planned for the mother to fly alone.

What didn't work out was the daughter's plan to accompany her mother all the way to the gate. She had to say goodbye in the security area, instead. But she never planned on flying with her mother. She was just going to put her on the plane, dirty diaper and all.

I guess the flight attendants were supposed to take care of her. They wouldn't have much else to do.

:shrug:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/06/26/dying-woman-underg ... /

Lena Reppert, 95, was to say her final goodbyes to her daughter before she made what would most likely be her last flight to her native Michigan. After eight years of battling leukemia, doctors say she doesn’t have much time to live.

[jberryhill]

227. The daughter didn't have a ticket, and wasn't going

So, um, who is it that you blame for flying her alone?

Was the airline supposed to force the daughter onboard a plane she had no intention of flying?

I think that would be kidnapping, but maybe you have some other justification for it.

Or do you read these stories before commenting?

So, obviously in a situation where

(1) someone is pushing an invalid in a wheelchair, and one who needs assistance with her clothing, and

(2) the person who dressed that invalid is not getting on that flight, but instead of using airport special services, wants to personally make sure that invalid gets on the plane,

...then the two of them should be waved through. Also, if you notice that the invalid needs a change of diaper and you point this out to the caregiver, it is nazism.

[pnwmom]

200. The daughter only wanted to put her mother on the plane.

Dirty diaper and all. She wasn't intending to fly with her mother, only to accompany her to the gate (and for that, she had to go through security herself.)

[pnwmom]

198. She never planned to fly with her mother.

Instead, she wanted to put her dying mother on the plane with a soiled diaper and no clean diapers and no family member to help her.

I guess the flight attendants were supposed to help.

:shrug:



http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/06/26/dying-woman-underg... /

Lena Reppert, 95, was to say her final goodbyes to her daughter before she made what would most likely be her last flight to her native Michigan. After eight years of battling leukemia, doctors say she doesn’t have much time to live.

[pipi_k]

238. I know...disgusting...

They want people at the airport...what...an hour before departure?

It may have taken 30 to 60 minutes or more for the family to get there.

Get on the plane, and it's another couple of hours in flight.

Get to destination and wait for baggage. Thirty minutes?

Trip back to family's house...let's just say 30 to 60 minutes allowing for traffic.

Happy/tearful greetings...getting settled...

Maybe another hour or two before someone stops to think maybe Mom's Depends needs to be changed. And maybe the receiving family doesn't have any on hand, so someone has to run out to the store to buy some.

Six hours, at least, in the same pissy depends.

Anybody leaving their baby in diapers that long during the day would probably get a visit from DSS.

[suffragette]

239. So, once identified as "suspicious" they were directed to a public bathroom?

LisaL,

You are raising an important point which I see has been sidetracked and not addressed.

From http://www.ktnv.com/story/14980810/tsa-agents-make-elderly-woman-take-off-her-diaper

Weber says the security screener was giving her mother a pat-down when the agent said the diaper felt strange and had to be removed in the bathroom.

Weber described their ordeal on CNN:

"They felt something suspicious on her leg and couldn't determine what it was and they took her into a closed room that was private and I was left outside," Jean Weber said. "They came out and told me it had something to do with her Depends, that it was wet and it was firm and they couldn't check it thoroughly. She would have to remove it. And I said, I don't have an extra one with me, normally this isn't a problem, and she said she could not complete the security check without the Depends off. I had to leave the security area and take her to a public restroom there in the airport and take it off of her."


All of this is supposed to be about security.

What type of security process:

1) picks someone to be searched
2) identifies someone and/or something in their possession as "strange" and "suspicious"
3) after identifying something "suspicious" directs them to a public bathroom so they can plant or dispose of the suspicious item


If it is really about security, there is no way a person would be allowed, much less directed, to leave the security area once something suspicious has been identified.


This demonstrates how little this is about genuine security.

[pnwmom]

302. The TSA says the facts are not as Weber describes them.

So maybe what really happened is that some TSA agent said to Weber -- hey, you should go and change your mother's soiled diaper before we go any farther. She shouldn't be getting on a long flight with a soiled diaper."

And Weber hadn't planned on having to change her mother -- to the point where she hadn't even brought any of the necessary supplies. She preferred to put her mother on the long flight, all by herself, wearing a soiled diaper and with no spares or anyone to help her.

I think you can find a lot better poster-child for the anti-TSA case than Weber.

[LisaL]

313. If TSA truly believes a person is hiding something in their underwear,

than demanding that person is taken to a restroom by a relative to remove that underwear makes no sense whatsoever from a security standpoint. I don't see why that is so hard for you to understand. TSA either believed there was something there, or it didn't. If they asked the daughter to take the mother to the restroom and remove it, I can only assume they never believed there was anything dangerous/illegal in that underwear.

[pnwmom]

315. The TSA agents aren't supposed to be acting based on their BELIEFS.

They're supposed to be following procedure.

But if they were concerned about the contents of the diaper, there would be no reason to worry once the contents were disposed of.

[LisaL]

375. Oh gee. That's nice to know. Instead of thinking, they are supposed

to blindly follow procedure? Is that what you are saying?

[pnwmom]

389. Pretty much. Because if they're following their hunches, then they're

shifting into various types of profiling. (This one looks innocent, that one looks suspicious, etc.)

And the end result would be situations like this:



http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/barcelona...

Two leaders of Barcelona's gay community claim that they were subjected to a humiliating security check at Israel's Ben Gurion Airport, while trying to leave the country after participating in last week's Tel Aviv gay pride parade.

The conduct of security at the airport has set off a firestorm with the Foreign Ministry, which had extended an official invitation to the pair to participate in Israel's gay pride activities.

David Marti, the general manager for gay pride events in Barcelona, told Haaretz that airport security had stripped his boyfriend whom he was traveling with. The pair were asked a series of personal questions, which Marti said exceeded reasonable limits. The men's personal items were also thoroughly searched.

Marti said the pair was questioned for a long time, with their security check ending just minutes before their plane took off. Marti and his partner managed to make it to their flight at the last minute.

SNIP

[suffragette]

319. "maybe what really happened" ? You've gone over to pure speculation

and just making up what you think might have occurred?

Sorry, not going to respond to your make-believe scenario.

[Bonobo]

162. Incorrect. They said they needed it to be changed because they couldn't check it

as it was.

Therefore they WERE checking the inside of the diaper.

You are making shit up and doing it poorly and obviously.

[pnwmom]

203. No, Weber said they could feel that it was firm.

They didn't have to check inside to know it was firm.

[pipi_k]

219. Yep, that's what I heard too...and...

anyone who has had experience with them knows just how much urine it takes to cause firmness sufficient to raise suspicion. And the firmness starts at the bottom (for women) and then grows progressively larger as it moves toward the front and back of the diaper.

People who don't know that (like a TSA agent) might wonder what hard object someone has in her lower abdominal area beneath her clothing and want to check it.

[pnwmom]

253. The other thing I learned as I read more

is that the daughter just wanted to put this mother on the plane by herself -- the daughter never intended to go with her. Can you imagine? This daughter was fighting for the right to put her dying mother with a dirty diaper on a long plane flight, with no spare diaper and no one to help her.

[pnwmom]

127. pipi, I think some people here have been through this.

Others don't have a clue.

[whathehell]

27. See if you feel that way when you, or someone close to you is wearing one.

[Incitatus]

275. I wouldn't send them on a 6 hour flight in a dirty one. nt

[whathehell]

297. Again...

This really is not the point.:eyes:

[pnwmom]

316. Why isn't that the point? It's Weber who, instead of realizing

that OF COURSE her mother's soiled diaper should be changed before her long flight, decided to make this a fight with the TSA. Because her preference was to deposit her dying mother with the airline, wearing an already full diaper, for a 5 or 6 hour flight.

[whathehell]

337. Because the TSA

wasn't "looking out" for the woman, they thought her

soiled diaper was a security risk!...That's

the point!

[pnwmom]

386. They might not have been looking out for the mother,

but they still did the mother more good than the daughter was planning to do, by getting the daughter to clean her up.

Funny how life can work out sometimes.

[whathehell]

390. Funny

How you consistently miss

the forest

for

the trees.

It seems deliberate at this point.

Buh bye:hi:

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

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

[Agent William]

129. +1,368. n/t

[pnwmom]

131. How could this lady take care of her own needs

when she had a soiled diaper and no one had brought any clean ones for her?

[pecwae]

209. There aren't enough +s

to indicate my agreement with your post.

[Incitatus]

274. That's an interesting observation.

It makes the story look a little different. I am no fan of the TSA, but this daughter here looks very negligent in her mother's care.

[notadmblnd]

18. Well I certainl hope she had it full of shit for them.

We should all wear diapers and shit in them before boarding a plane. I'll bet TSA would change their minds about searching our private parts then.

[SDuderstadt]

21. Brilliant and...

adult-like. Wait...what?

[stuntcat]

37. I know, right?

what if some people started wearing dirty diapers just to board planes? heck yeah :headbang:

Was this not the kind of thing the metal detectors or x-rays or whatever could have handled??? And really, a 95-yr-old woman? insanity.

[Lucian]

30. But, but, but she may have had a bomb in that diaper!!!!11!!11!

Teh TSA is keeping us safe from bombers like her!!!11111111111111!!!!1111111ELEVENS

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :sarcasm:

This is sick and despicable, and what's worse is that some here support the TSA. :puke:

[LisaL]

32. And TSA allowed the daughter to take the mother to the bathroom

to remove the diaper. If they were truly concerned about something that 95 year old carried on the body, how does that make a lick of sense?
For what purpose did TSA do all of this?

[woo me with science]

39. Thank you.

Security theater of the absurd.

[October]

80. Exactly! Everyone is ignoring your point. It's illogical -- and talk about irony...

When I recently went through TSA, the female agent asked me if a certain bag was mine, and I replied, "No." The woman then said, "They'll need to meet you over there for further search/screening of the bag."

So, I go "over there," with my suitcase and stand there for what feels like forever. I'm was afraid I was going to miss my flight... when others finally said (in support of me), "She needs to catch a flight... can you do her bag next?" At this point, they say to me, "Why are you here?" OMG.... because I was told to come here. They asked if the bag by my feet was mine, and I say, "Yes." Then they say, "Well, we wouldn't let you have the bag if we intended to screen it... you can go."

My head was spinning.

Meanwhile the woman whose bag they were rifling through contained a sports drink bottle. Unbelievably, she asked if she could have it back because she wanted a drink.

I've worked in the airline business (pre-911) and my spouse still works in the industry. It's ridiculous. What a farce. These workers are on ego trips and are oh-so-self-important with their newfound authority.

They take away a pilot's nail clippers and then he sits at the controls. The entire process is illogical.

Sorry to rant...

[LisaL]

137. And so WTF does it have to do with security?

If they suspect there could be something in the diaper, why are they asking the relative to take it off in a restroom? And if they don't, then WTF are they searching an elderly sick lady for?

[pnwmom]

265. Okay, put your terrorist thinking-cap on.

If you're going to try to put a bomb on the plane, who better to have carry it than a terminally ill person? Who no one would ever check because that person looked so harmless? Who you can just drop off at the gate? Maybe you don't happen to have one of your own dying family members handy, though -- so you offer some money to someone else who does. Or you bribe the nurse who was taking care of the dying person before the relative drove her to the plane for her last flight.

Now think like the TSA. If you ask the person who's trying to drop off the terminally ill person to change the diaper, then you can make sure that nothing harmful is hidden in the diaper. Potential problem solved.

[pipi_k]

255. Unless the family could vouch for every single second

of time since arriving at the airport, it's entirely possible that she COULD have explosives in her diaper, put there by someone else.

Of course, that's just as silly as believing children (like that 8 year old girl recently) could be used for the same purpose...


:eyes:

[Lucian]

284. I'd like to point out the famous quote by Benjamin Franklin...

about safety and liberty and such, but it'd probably go right over your head.

[pipi_k]

303. I already know the famous quote by Benjamin Franklin, dear...

And ordinarily I would agree.

But people who don't appear to care about their own safety don't have the right to impose their lack of concern on others. And it goes the other way around as well.


Maybe a sensible alternative to people imposing their own fears or lack of concern for their own safety on others would be to have airlines for both groups.

People who don't mind being screened can fly on one plane with others of like mind.

People who don't give a shit can fly on a different plane with pilots and attendants who also don't give a shit. No screening, no pat-downs, no limits on liquids, no baggage checking...total FREEDOM, baby!!!


Quite frankly, I wouldn't want to be on either plane. I wouldn't want to be treated like a potential criminal on one plane, and I wouldn't want to stupidly believe that there are no people out there who would love nothing better than to blow up a loaded airliner...perhaps over a major city.

I believe moderation is the key.

But that's probably a concept that would go right over YOUR head.

[pnwmom]

292. And also the time before the airport. The TSA wouldn't know

who was caring for her before the daughter drove her to the airport.

[pipi_k]

304. That's true...

Someone could do something strange with her clothing and who would know?

Even if the woman said something to the effect, would they really believe something like that coming from a 95 year old woman?


I recall my own MIL saying so much weird stuff that we just sort of went "Uh, huh" a lot to her. Like telling us at breakfast that she had been to a football game the night before. That there was a small child in bed with her. In the hospital she told the nurses she had attended a big party up on the 6th floor. Oops...hospital only had 5 floors....plus the nurses checked on her all the time. They argued with her, telling her she certainly had NOT been to a party.

So if one day my MIL had said that somebody came over and put a bomb in her pants I'd be like, "Uh...OK" and that would be it. Because arguing with her was stressful and very unpleasant for everyone concerned.

Know what scares me?

Someday someone WILL plant a bomb in an old person's clothing or underpants.

I sincerely hope nobody here who is shitting all over the TSA for checking this woman has to deal with losing a loved one that way.

[pnwmom]

306. It seems that there's an awful lot of wishful thinking going on.

If we just stop all the "security theater," the problem of terrorism will magically go away. Sure it will -- until the next time.

I wonder if any of the people who say that security is a waste of time bother locking their doors and windows. Why isn't that an equal waste of time? Some determined burglar could get in anyway. I know why I bother -- simply to reduce the odds. And that's why we put up with with airline security -- by making it harder, we reduce the odds of another attack. And that's all we can do.

[Canuckistanian]

43. This is getting pathetic

What goes through the minds of these little dictators on the security line?

NOBODY should fault them for declining to strip search an old woman in a wheelchair.

And Oh, did they rip the wheelchair apart, too? That's a PERFECT place for dying elderly people to smuggle C4 and detonators in.

[awoke_in_2003]

49. oh jesus christ on a stick...

we, as a country, have really gone off the deep end.

[avebury]

58. K&R

[backscatter712]

60. The TSA are the real terrorists among us.

They don't protect us, they terrorize us. Deliberately. To promote the government's political control over us. That's terrorism.

[struggle4progress]

64. Cleaning up dirty diapers ASAP is a matter of basic respect, whether the diaper is worn by

a one-month-old or a hundred-year-old

It's a matter of ordinary human courtesy to the diaper-wearer

In public places, it's also a matter of ordinary human courtesy to everybody else

What an insult to an old woman to assume she should stay filthy while traveling from Florida to Michigan! And what disregard for every other member of the public that has to be near the poor woman that whole time!

How hard can it be to pack some extra diapers and wipes?

[pnwmom]

181. Strange to see so many people arguing against the need to change a soiled diaper.

I guess they've never had to care for a baby or an elderly person.

I read in one of the articles that the 95 year old wasn't perturbed by the whole situation. I suspect she was relieved to get out of the dirty diaper -- especially when the only alternative was to sit in it for that long plane flight! Maybe the daughter was disturbed because she'd been hoping to avoid that diaper change till they arrived in Michigan (she didn't have any spares with her); but that really would have been unfair to her mother.

[struggle4progress]

210. I'm beginning to wonder if we Americans remember any discussion method beyond noisy outrage

Folk who want less airport security are free to contact their Representatives and Senators to ask for less -- but the political problems still looks unsolvable to me

I'm sure this particular incident was embarrassing for everybody involved

It seems to me an unfortunate oversight not to take extra diapers and somewhat clueless (on several levels) to complain that security personnel requested a change of diapers under the circumstances

[pnwmom]

257. Several people have said

that I have made the lowest arguments they have ever heard. I guess they're lucky, in their sheltered lives, if I'm the worst they've ever experienced.

[Blue_In_AK]

76. This is absolutely inexcusable.

What has this country become??

[Enthusiast]

82. There is no fucking sense in this.

I would rather live with the risk.

[B-Stupid]

83. Honestly, shit like this makes my blood boil

fuck Napolitano. If I don't vote for Obama come 2012, this will be why...

[woo me with science]

159. +1000000

He jokes about it. What the hell has happened to the Democratic Party?

[hedgehog]

84. This is all Anthony Weiner's fault.

If he hadn't resigned, we'd still be talking about him.

[WillyT]

85. What The Fuck Man...

What the hell have we done?

:evilfrown:

[MadMaddie]

88. A dying American woman having to go through this violation

is unacceptable.

This goes beyond security. These agents are not using protocol they are getting to do what they want to do and that is humiliate Americans.

[LisaL]

93. I also don't see how this could be SOP.

If they are searching someone because of the suspicion that someone carries something on her body, then asking a relative to take that someone into a bathroom and remove the diapers makes no sense whatsoever.

[woo me with science]

158. But you heard the answer:

"It's procedure." Along with making absolutely vile accusations against the family.

Fucking low, vile, and disgusting, all this apologia. I don't know when I've seen DU sink so low.

[LisaL]

163. But it is not the procedure.

They admit they shouldn't be asking passengers to remove adult diapers. So why is TSA defending it?

"The TSA said in a statement to Fox News that at "no instance" would an officer ask a passenger to remove an adult diaper."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/06/26/dying-woman-undergoes-additional-tsa-security-screening-says-family/#ixzz1QS80VxY6

[SDuderstadt]

164. They asked that it be....

"changed".

Do you see the subtle difference?

[Name removed]

165. Deleted message

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

[WinkyDink]

232. Um, except This TSA blather IS NOT TRUE.

[pnwmom]

202. What was the "vile accusation" against the family?

Are the details too vile to mention?

The daughter was upset that she had to change her dying mother's dirty diaper before the mother could get on the plane (alone, by the way). If the TSA hadn't asked the daughter to change the diaper, she would have put her mother on the plane and left her -- with a dirty diaper to wear for the next 5 or 6 hours and no spare to change into (much less someone to help her).

[woo me with science]

213. Shame on you.

Reread this thread and the responses you got, and think about it. I am too disgusted to replay this for you.

This is about the lowest attempt to deflect from an argument that I have ever seen on DU.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1364904&mesg_id=1366626

[pnwmom]

254. People here haven't grasped the facts -- that this woman

was going to be put alone on a plane with a dirty diaper and no spare; and that this would have been a miserable experience for her. Much more miserable than her time with TSA. This daughter is no good representative for the anti-TSA argument. There are far better cases.

[pipi_k]

261. Yep....fifteen minutes or so...

with the TSA

vs

half a day sitting in a pond of one's own stale urine, which could be burning sores into her sensitive regions. My own experience is that even four hours wearing a damp cotton urine pad gives me painful boils in a place I won't mention.


I know which one I'd choose...

[woo me with science]

264. You know, I usually leave arguments because they have wound down,

or because I have had enough fun already, or because I need to do something else, or just because I am tired.

It is very rare that I leave a discussion on DU out of sheer revulsion at how low it has sunk.

:puke:

[pnwmom]

271. Yes, it has sunk very low when so many people are arguing

for the right to leave a dependent, dying person in a soiled diaper for 5 or 6 hours.

[KansDem]

91. But...but...she signed away her Constitutional rights when she bought the ticket!!!

:sarcasm:

Fuck the TSA and anyone who condones this kind of practice! :grr:

[thereismore]

94. Bin Laden wins. nt

[rhett o rick]

100. .

[WinkyDink]

96. Sicker and sicker. Demented paranoia.

[Lenomsky]

97. It's nutza ...

Not sure what to say about this without showing my colours .. it's undeniable that TSA must be PC so they do as Door Men (Bouncers) do and pick a colour (next person wearing that colour) or the next person with sneakers on to be fully searched. It stands to reason I imagine as they don't get alerts each day.

I do have issue with TSA and the UK couterpart and the backscatter X-Rays which I've went through not even knowing! as I had hoped for a full pat down .. a little light entertainment before my flight.

We brought this on ourselves by proxy and 1984 is the here and now unless we revolt. I fear it's that simple but too late :(

[Joe Bacon]

102. Meanwhile they give Vitter a pass...

Gosh, I wonder why?????

[The Wizard]

104. 19 guys with box cutters

defeated the most powerful military in the history of the world. bin Laden may be dead, but his attack on America has caused us to cease to be the land of the free. Home of the brave, you're kidding, right?

[WinkyDink]

230. "19" is a fictitious number, never proven. But the result of 9/11? Madness.

[LibDemAlways]

243. Your statement sums up 9/11 very succinctly. And Pres.

Dumbass Bush was warned and did absolutely nothing to stop it, so people at the highest levels of government were complicit. They needed their "New Pearl Harbor" and got it. Now 95-year-old people in wheelchairs have to be "patted down" as a result. Disgustingly huge pile of bullshit. The US has become a police state and people are too busy watching American Idol to notice or care.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

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

[Divine Discontent]

118. when does the insanity END?

now their ripping off diapers off people? so do they do this to babies too? I am NOT in the USA anymore, I am in the FSA (fascist), National "Safety" is above the rights of humanity.... gag me....

[BeHereNow]

Unfortunately- I think it is only starting... n/t

bhn

[BeHereNow]

138. Unfortunately- I think it is only starting... n/t

bhn

[Divine Discontent]

409. hey bhn, sadly, it appears that way... big brother insanity

[Bonobo]

145. Where WOULD it end, even in theory (if left up to them)...

WOMD proven to be a lie.

It didn't end.

You got OBL.

It didn't end.

It ain't gonna end.

[gtar100]

172. Oh, Florida. Now I understand.

What scares me the most is that TSA recruits from the pool we swim in. We have some very fucked up people in this here USA. And the problem is, they don't know it and think of themselves as the righteous and protectors of this nation.

[pnwmom]

207. Could Florida also explain

how this daughter could argue for putting her dying mother on a long plane flight with a soiled diaper, no spares, and no one except strangers to help her?

[kentuck]

208. Is there no end to this ?

What a sick bunch of mother fuckers!

[Name removed]

211. Deleted message

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

[somone]

218. This one?

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

[Pooka Fey]

222. Yes, thank you so much.

:-)

[meow mix]

220. home of the "brave" nt

[meow mix]

223. TSA contact page. its fun to write them really nasty letters

http://www.tsa.gov/contact/index.shtm

who doesnt like venting?

[aikoaiko]

241. My local airport is so much cooler than this. I forgot about a knife in my backpack ...

...and they pulled it out and asked me to return it to my car or mail it back.

They ran me through the line quickly the second time through.

[ecstatic]

242. That was silly. They need to focus more on luggage

That is most likely what the next source of "terror" will be.

[pnwmom]

295. We only know what the daughter said. Maybe the TSA agent

just said something human, like -- "I noticed your mother needs to have her diaper changed before she gets on the plane by herself -- the diaper's already full."

[kpete]

244. TSA stands by officers after pat-down of elderly woman in Florida

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/26/florida.tsa.incident/index.html?hpt=hp_p1&iref=NS1

[LibDemAlways]

245. Anyone who could look at that woman and see a potential

terrorist is seriously disturbed and should be removed from TSA immediately and taken away for a mental evaluation.

TSA is a bunch of paranoid morons and the biggest waste of taxpayer dollars ever.

[pipi_k]

252. No, and that's sort of the point...

All that would have to happen would be for the mom to be left unattended for five minutes while the family took care of luggage or check in or whatever.

Someone else with an agenda could then come along and plant something on her.

It's not totally beyond the realm of possibility, and people should consider that before getting all foamed at the mouth.


SHE doesn't look like a terrorist. So someone wanting to smuggle a bomb aboard might use her to do it.


The TSA are doing the jobs they are supposed to be doing and people are taking them to task for thinking of all the ways someone might get explosives on a plane.

[lapislzi]

266. There has to be some middle ground

Wherein human dignity is respected, and the job of security gets done. Unfortunately, people making minimum wage, and with minimal education, may not be the ones to effect such a policy.

[pnwmom]

268. Speaking of human dignity,

there is nothing dignified about an adult being forced to sit through a long plane flight wearing smelly, dirty diapers.

And there is nothing dignified about the bedsores that can erupt from just sitting in one place for too long -- even without the added problem of the bacteria and acid in a full diaper.

[LibDemAlways]

282. TSA has nothing to do with security. They would be no match at all for

a determined terrorist. Harassing 95-year-old women makes no one safer. I totally agree with you about the caliber of people who man the checkpoints. It's a huge joke. If the US took airport security seriously, we'd overhaul the entire system, focus on the baggage compartment, and leave the law-abiding travelling public the hell alone.

[SDuderstadt]

288. How come no "determined terrorist" has done so...

for a while?

[jberryhill]

345. Tell me more about the "caliber of people who man the checkpoints"

Are they like all of those other dreadful government employees I keep hearing about?

[Mimosa]

357. Slaves to fear become pawns of the national security state

What an odd unlikely scenario. Fear has colonised your imagination. Because of such irrational fears some will attempt to justify any actions by the state. :(

If there were creative terrorists they'd be suicide bombing in busy shopping malls at Christmas.

[pnwmom]

267. And that is why the procedures have been designed to eliminate

human bias in the equation.

Terrorists could look at that same woman and see the perfect candidate to carry a bomb aboard without drawing any suspicion. If someone in the dying woman's family needed cash -- or a nurse or another caretaker could be bribed -- all the terrorist would need would be a few minutes alone with her, to put on a diaper with some plastic explosives.

Terrorists in Afghanistan just used an 8 year old girl as a bomb carrier. And you're so sure they'd never use a sick old lady?

[Name removed]

283. Deleted message

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

[pnwmom]

290. I am logical. Those who argue for bias in TSA procedures

are not.

[Blue Owl]

249. Hope she left them a little present in that diaper

n/t

[pnwmom]

269. The reason the daughter is so upset is that the TSA asked her to change

her mother's dirty diaper. The daughter just wanted to drop her mother off for a long flight with the full diaper, no spares, and no one to help her.

Does that sound right to you?

[aj_cd]

250. TSA is not the big problem in this story

the daughter is. Yep, the daughter.
1st I know the TSA are often bullies, I would not expect them to be my advocate.
I would expect my daughter to be.

1. daughter should have had spare depends
2. daughter should not have brought more attention to this and embarash her mother more.

Before you attack me you should know I have leukemia and when I am out of remission I know how it effects bodily functions. It is embarshing and that is all I will say about that.
I am not 95 I am 57 but at different times during my illness that could have been me in that chair.
I don't like tactics of TSA, but people on front line are not problem, they have to follow guidelines. And yes I know some of them are bullies, I get that.
But if I were that woman I would be very angry with my daughter. This did not have to happen this way. Use someone else to make point about TSA. Not this woman.

[pnwmom]

270. Thanks for the wise words. You speak from experience -- many people here clearly don't.

I'm amazed at all the people defending the daughter's argument that she should have been able to drop her dying mother off at the gate, with a soiled diaper, no spares, and no one to help her mother on the airplane.

Of course the mother didn't get upset with the TSA -- she was probably relieved to get out of the nasty diaper. And how can anyone think that having her daughter change her diaper would have been worse for her than sitting in it for another 5 or 6 hours?

Welcome to Democratic Underground! And I wish you better health and a very long remission.

:hug:

[defendandprotect]

272. Next up ... TSA body cavity searches ... we can call it --

"Justice Clarence Thomas TSA Act"

[Glassunion]

280. How about "Freedom Fingers"?

Or a "Patriot Probe"?
Or a "Democracy Dig"?

[defendandprotect]

281. "Patriot Probe" gets my vote ... !!

[spooked911]

273. I hope they sue bigtime. We need more lawsuits against the gestapo TSA

fugging outrageous

[Name removed]

276. Deleted message

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

[spooked911]

395. we're in the early stages yet, dude

not saying we're in full genocide mode or anything

But still need to stand up to gestapo-like behavior.

[SDuderstadt]

402. Dude...

Why don't you lay it out for us? Trace the transition of the Weimar Republic to the development of the Third Reich. Then we can compare your version to reference works like "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" and see how off-base your commentary is.

[spooked911]

417. let's not

It's a waste of time; obviously I was claiming a perfect exact repeat of history.

[Name removed]

401. Deleted message

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

[pnwmom]

291. What is she going to sue for? The right to put her dying mother

alone on a long flight, wearing a dirty diaper?

:rofl:

[Ignis]

298. Your laughter speaks volumes.

[pnwmom]

299. And so does your silence.

Because there really isn't any way to justify what the daughter wanted to do -- to put her dying mother alone on a long flight, wearing a dirty diaper, with no spares and no one to help her.

[Ignis]

305. Do you own stock in Red Herring Enterprises or something?

:eyes:

[pnwmom]

309. This isn't a red herring. Weber wants to make a TSA issue

out of her resistance to taking proper care of her mother. Rather than admitting she was wrong to try to load her mother onto a plane for a long flight, wearing a full diaper, she decided to blame the TSA for their evil policies.

It's Weber who's trying to turn this issue into something this isn't.

[LisaL]

310. I seriously think you should apply to work for TSA.

Considering your apparent obsession with the state of elderly person's underwear.

[pnwmom]

311. No, but I am experienced in caring for sick elderly people.

I can only assume that most of the people in this thread are not.

By the way, now that we know the daughter just wanted to ship her mother off to Michigan by herself -- dirty diaper and all -- (that there never was a plan for the daughter to fly with her; just to accompany her to the gate) doesn't that make you even the slightest bit queasy?

Now it's clear why the daughter hadn't brought extra diapers. Weber wasn't traveling with her mother and she knew no one else would be able to help her mother change them. Unless, of course, she thought it was a flight attendant's job. Or maybe the passenger in the next seat?

:shrug:

[Mimosa]

358. So am I. The daughter isn't the topic for god's sake.

Inexperienced human beings make mistakes because they aren't experienced in caring for the sick. IMO a sick 95 year old probably shouldn't have been flying on long trips BUT you won't see me bashing her family. They wanted to see each other while she was still alive.

Your incessant bashing of vulnerable people in order to defend the TSA system is warped at best. *gag*

[LibDemAlways]

338. My similar suggestion got deleted. I posted that this

person sounds so paranoid that I think TSA would be a good fit.

[Ignis]

318. The TSA is not the DSA.

If you want to launch an effort to start a governmental agency to monitor how frequently caregivers are changing the diapers of elderly citizens, be my guest.

That's not the TSA's job.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

[pnwmom]

321. It's the TSA's job to make sure nothing is hidden

in clothing that could be a threat. Plastic explosives are one of the things that they screen for. The TSA can't do that screening when confronted with a lumpy diaper. For all the complaints I've heard about the TSA, this is the lamest. They made a daughter change her mother's soiled diaper before she could go through screening and board the plane.

How evil.

:sarcasm:

[LisaL]

326. So if underwear bomber shows up, they feel something in there,

their procedure would be to send him off to the restroom to take that diaper off? Well, isn't that nice to know?

[SDuderstadt]

327. If it keeps PETN...

off the plane, absolutely.

[LisaL]

334. Yea. I guess it will suck for all those people waiting in line, though.

[SDuderstadt]

342. It'll suck less than...

having the plane blow up.

[LisaL]

349. I guess that's what the terrorist in Russia was thinking when he

went into an unsecured area of the airport and blew a bunch of people up.

[jberryhill]

344. And the airport terminal might then crash into a population center

That would be awful.

[Name removed]

396. Deleted message

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

[pnwmom]

328. We don't know what the TSA procedure is in all cases.

That's not exactly something they want to publicize.

[spooked911]

397. you don't know how full it was

nor do you know whether the daughter had spares in her bags that she couldn't get to

[spooked911]

398. humiliation, emotional distress, treating an old sick woman like a terrorist

don't be so heartless

[fascisthunter]

278. Hey TSA, get a grip

you are acting like a bunch of paranoid idiots!!!!

[saras]

285. Does anyone have any evidence the diaper was soiled before the womand had to face TSA agents?

For all I can tell in the original story, she could have shit her pants when faced with a pat-down. They took her away into a closed room, and then come out and say "she's shit her pants". Being 94, taken away from my caretaker into a closed room and groped down my underpants, I'd shit my pants too.

[jberryhill]

287. The gel was hardened

Are you familiar with the absorbent gel used in diapers?

[Name removed]

413. Deleted message

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

[pnwmom]

289. The daughter herself said that the mother hadn't been upset

by the situation. It was the daughter who was crying. She said her mother was calm because she was an experienced nurse.

But let's pretend you're right, and suddenly the mother has a dirty diaper. It STILL needs to be changed before she can get on a long flight. An elderly person can develop a serious bedsore from just a couple hours of sitting in one place -- much less 5 hours, wearing a soiled diaper.

[LisaL]

312. The mother is also very elderly and near death.

I am glad she wasn't overly upset, but I fail to see how that makes the situation all that better.

[pnwmom]

314. Then why would it be okay for Weber

to put her, wearing a soiled diaper, on a long plane fight by herself? With no spare diapers or anyone to help her?

People who need medical attention can and do fly -- but they're supposed to be helped by a travel companion when they can't take care of themselves. This woman, according to her own daughter, was like a little child; and she needed to wear diapers; and she was dying of cancer. Why was she put on a long flight all by herself?

[LisaL]

317. I really have no idea as to how I am supposed to know answers

regarding the specifics of family care for this elderly woman, but I suspect her daughter was doing her best, even if it's not good enough for you. The dying woman wanted to visit her relatives before she died. Does TSA really think that 95 year old woman is hiding something dangerous in her adult diaper?
Where is common sense?

[pnwmom]

320. You're right, common sense is missing here.

You don't put a dying person, unable to take care of herself, alone on a long airplane flight, even if she wants to visit relatives. If necessary, the relatives can chip in and pay for someone to travel with her. But if you absolutely, positively, have no choice, then the common sense thing is to send her off in CLEAN DIAPERS. Don't put her on the plane in a situation guaranteed to cause painful bedsores. And don't blame the evil policies of the TSA because you didn't bring clean ones with you -- since you thought she wouldn't need them (and no one would be available to help her change them).

[jberryhill]

323. "Does TSA really think that 95 year old woman is hiding something dangerous in her adult diaper?"

As someone who recently took my blind daughter and her MS disabled friend to the airport for a flight, there is something you seem to be missing here.

EVERY airport has "special services" staff for the specific purpose of helping disabled persons get through security, to their gate, and on the plane. They are really good at what they do, and had my complete confidence to get my daughter and her friend on the plane, and off at the other end. That's what they are there for.

Now, you have a situation where an unticketed person shows up with an invalid, doesn't use special services, and wants to make sure that they go through security with that person and get that person on the plane for a flight they themselves aren't taking.

Your response: Obviously, no possible security threat. Is that correct? You might want to think about the sentence just above, before you answer that.

This is a frail 88 year old man:



Does he look like a terrorist to you? Do you know who he is and what he did?

[LisaL]

325. Please. Explain to me why TSA send the daughter

to the restroom to remove her mother's diaper there if they actually were concerned that the mother was hiding something in that diaper?

[pnwmom]

330. So you're complaining now because they didn't force the daughter

to change the diaper in front of them?

:rofl:

[jberryhill]

336. Well, it's not like they wanted to build a mosque or anything

Some folks...

[jberryhill]

333. Because she needed a new diaper

Is that really hard to figure out?

And loving daughter who was going to dump mom on the plane without a fresh one didn't have any, got upset, and decided to take it out on the TSA.

[LisaL]

379. Oh please. Does TSA now stand for diaper inspection agency?

Why stop with diapers? Maybe they should start inspecting all underwear for cleanliness and dryness.
:sarcasm:

[pnwmom]

385. Any underwear that feels, through outer clothing, as if it contains

gel packs should be checked, IMO.

[pnwmom]

331. Okay, I'll bite. Who is that sweet little old man

and what did he do?

[jberryhill]

332. James von Brunn, the Holocaust Museum shooter /nt

[sabrina 1]

350. So, if they thought she was a threat, why did they send

both of them off alone, unsupervised, where they could have blown up the entire airport? And they intended to complete the search AFTER the daughter removed the diaper without supervision? Does that make sense to you? Wouldn't it be a little late AFTER she blew up the airport?

Seems to me they did NOT think she was threat.

And it is not unusual to bring one's elderly parent to the airport and escort them to the departure gate, nor to ask to accompany them through a security check. It is a humane thing to do.

Death by terror is one of the least threats to American lives. So miniscule by comparison to others, such as death for lack of Medical Coverage. Yet no such effort, no billions of dollars are being spent to save any of those 44,000 lives every year.

This is nothing but theater and it is ALL for profit. I hope the legislation now before Congress to restrict these ridiculous and useless practices, will pass. It does not go far enough, but it is a start to begin the restoration of our rights.

[jberryhill]

351. Because she needed a new diaper

That's the simplest question I think I've ever been asked.

[sabrina 1]

354. So, they allowed two suspected suicide bombers to

roam the airport, unsupervised, where they were free to blow up the airport, if that was their intention? Is that what you are claiming?

So, all a terrorist has to do is wear a really stinky diaper, and he will be told to go change it and come back when he's done??

THIS is what you claim to be security practices worth giving up our rights for that will keep us safe?

Or, could it be that the TSA knew they were no threat at all? And if that is the case, why were they groping around in her underwear??

Btw, it seems the TSA is now saying they did NOT order her daughter to remove the diaper. So all you defenders of that order, what do you have to say now?

[jberryhill]

355. No, they were not "suspected suicide bombers"

And by that point, the situation was undoubtedly clear, and the woman needed a change.

And nobody should have to "order" anyone to change a diaper that needs changing.

My goodness, the fascism... actually telling someone to change a diaper in need of it.

[pnwmom]

361. No, see, it was fascism, because

that daughter ought to have been FREE to leave that messy chore to the flight attendants. They're paid for that, right?

[Bonobo]

392. I see you have now convinced yourself that the TSA are champions for the elderly.

Your mind works in interesting ways.

[sabrina 1]

362. They now claim they did not ask the daughter to change the

diaper. So that sort of destroys your claims. Initially they supposedly DID order the change because they could not 'complete their search' and could not because of the diaper being 'too hard' for them to do whatever disgusting thing it was they wanted to do. Please check this thread where you will see the claims that they wanted the diaper changed NOT for any altruistic reasons, but because they wanted to complete the search.

However, this is all moot now that they deny they even requested a diaper change. That kind of blows your defense of them.

So, what actually happened? The daugher is standing by her initial complaint. The TSA has now twice changed their story. First they defended the agents for ordering the change before completing the search, now they say they never ordered the change.

[LisaL]

364. I believe that TSA is claiming they didn't offer the diaper

removal because they offered her "options." The daughter claims that these "options" were not to fly or get the diaper removed.

[sabrina 1]

366. Yes, but I guess they've received so many outraged complaints

they are attempting to say now that they never told her to change the diaper. I know they are lying, par for the course for them. I do believe the daughter. But this is a PR nightmare for them and now they are choosing to simply say 'we didn't do it'.

[SDuderstadt]

369. I'm willing to bet...

you're reading something into the TSA's initial statement that they did not say, Sabrina.

[pnwmom]

373. Wrong. They said they didn't "require" her to.

The story we heard initially all came from Weber -- she was the one who was making claims about why they wanted her to change the diaper. And now she's changing her story - agreeing that they didn't order her to change the diapers. She isn't credible.

[sabrina 1]

377. Incorrect. The TSA defended their agents yesterday

stating they had done the right thing by ordering her daughter to remove the diaper. Today they contradicted themselves, a fact noted in the media.

You need to stop, you are attempting to defend a horror story that has shocked people around the world. I would not want to be on the wrong side of this, and I wonder, what was your position on these abuses when Bush attempted them back in 2003? How did you argue then, FOR the TSA and Bush, or against them? I do not recall a single Progressive democrat supporting these tactics and they were not even this bad, when Bush was president. I really would like to know where you stood on the TSA back then.

[Name removed]

380. Deleted message

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

[pnwmom]

360. I said all along that the TSA said they didn't order the diaper removal.

And I still suspect that an agent simply told the daughter that her mother needed to have her dirty diaper changed before she got on the plane -- which is absolutely true. That dying woman was going to be ALONE on a plane for 5 or 6 hours, with no one to help her. As bad as that was she shouldn't start the whole flight with a full diaper.

[sabrina 1]

363. Well, it seems you are wrong as the TSA is now saying they

made no request that the diaper be changed.

And sorry, but you have been lauding the TSA for ordering the change of diaper, claiming it was a positive thing that they did so. Indeed it was your entire justification for these abuses at the airport.

But now, they are claiming they did nothing of the kind. So, that sort of blows your theory that they were so concerned about a dirty diaper they told the daughter to change it. They now say they did not.

[pnwmom]

367. No, they said they didn't "order" the removal.

Requesting, suggesting, and ordering are different things.

I was glad that, whatever the TSA agent said, she got the woman to remove the dirty diaper and not send her her mother off wearing it on the plane. If you read my posts, you would see that I first said they had INADVERTENTLY benefited the elderly mother -- I didn't think they had set out to do so. I assumed they were just following the rules. But after reading several slightly varying accounts of what had happened, I was increasingly skeptical that they "ordered" her to do anything, though that would have been okay with me, since I don't see how they could do a pat-down with a solid hunk (or hunks) of something in the diaper.

Eventually, when I read they were denying that they required her to remove the diaper, I realized they probably had just said what any concerned bystander might say -- "We noticed she's got a dirty diaper. You better fix that before you put her on the plane." And the daughter, who had not come prepared to change her mother, objected. This whole thing was about the daughter, and her unhappiness about having to clean up her mother in the restroom. Too bad she hadn't made better arrangements before she got to the airport.

[LisaL]

368. Yea, maybe they just "suggested it" nicely, or she wasn't going to get

on the plane. Nice choice there.

[sabrina 1]

372. No, this whole thing it about abuse of power. I know you are

desperately and apparently unsuccessfully, trying to defend the indefensible.

Clearly the public is outraged, as we should be. And the TSA is now trying to retract their initial defense of the agents. That kind of leaves you out in the cold.

Were they lying when they defended the agents or are they lying now?

They prevented a loving daughter from saying goodbye to her mother who managed to live to the age of 95 withour YOUR interference in her life. So clearly she was very well taken care of. It is an outrage. I hope this contributes to Congress' already disgust with what is going on with this agency.

It is reprehensible to try smear a loving daughter this way. And I'm glad to see that the public at larage totally disagrees with you and is repulsed by this story as any decent person would be.

That is why the TSA is now attempting to backtrack on their initial defense of their agents. I hope the daughter joins all the other passengers who are currently suing this abusive agency.

[LisaL]

365. No you didn't say it all along.

All along you've been claiming that removal of a diaper was a proper thing to do.

[SDuderstadt]

352. Sabrina...

1st of all, Weber could have asked for a special needs escort and avoided all of this, for the most part. Secondly, the TSA did not know what was in the diaper, but, since it felt wet and solid, the humane thing was to ask the daughter to change it. Third, if it was their intent to blow up the airport, they could have already done that on the way in, so it was not a high-risk response.

[Name removed]

356. Deleted message

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

[pnwmom]

359. Is it a "humane thing" to put your parent on a plane with a pre-soiled diaper?

Is it a humane thing not to bother having clean diapers in the carry-on because you know there won't be anyone inside the plane to help her change it anyway?

The only humane thing for this family to have done was to send along a traveling companion who could help the dying woman with any health needs that came up -- and to have clean diapers included in the carry-on.

I certainly hope that it IS unusual for families to put dying relatives on long plane flights by themselves, wearing diapers soiled before the plane even leaves the ground. I hope it IS unusual for families to be willing to leave their elderly relatives in soiled diapers for 5 or 6 hours at a time.

[Name removed]

370. Deleted message

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

[lib2DaBone]

322. As long as Congress is willing to give them a blank check and plenty of money...

..just like the DEA (and forms of cancer).. they will continue to grow and consume everything in their path.

[Safetykitten]

371. "Ask Defender Janet" forum, click on diapers...elderly, not diapers/celebrities.

[EndElectoral]

381. whew...is this really how frightened we are as a country?

[flvegan]

382. Thank you, George W. Cheney-Obama.

Yup, I said it.

[malaise]

399. We saw her on TV late last night

What a disgrace

[LibDemAlways]

404. Truly. Anyone who, in their wildest imagination, could

conjure up a vision of that woman as a terrorist needs help. Yet, there are DUers who manufacture ridiculous scenarios to justify patting her down, claiming that terrorists could bribe her family into planting a bomb on her. Truly pathetic that anyone could live in such fear of the boogeyman that they would willingly allow an elderly, dying woman to be abused by the government.

[pipi_k]

405. I wouldn't go so far as to claim

the family could have been bribed, but really...unless you have your eye on someone at all times, it wouldn't be hard for someone to sneak something into her clothing.

Also...there are things that are prohibited on board. Things that are not, in and of themselves, dangerous, but which are still prohibited.


I really don't know what the answer is here unless we allow the TSA to do profiling based on age and race.

Because isn't that what people here are using as an excuse for outrage?

Holy cow!!!! This is a little old WHITE lady...not a young BROWN man.

Brown men...they all look like terrorists, you know.

:eyes:


One thing I'm glad of here...at least the woman IS white. Because if this same thing happened to a minority person, the outrage and rants over racism!!!! would echo off the virtual walls of DU.

And if someone came in to ask what the reaction would be if it happened with a WHITE person, the answer would be...

"It wouldn't!!!!"

Bullshit.


So what do we do, huh? Treat everyone the same, or start profiling based on age and race?



Oh...and it appears the woman herself wasn't that upset over the whole deal. But what does she know, right? People have to be upset FOR her, right? Because she's too old and sick to know any better...

Meh.

[LibDemAlways]

406. How about using common sense? And, yeah, it's

terribly un PC to say so, but using that common sense in determining who might actually be a threat isn't a bad thing.

[pipi_k]

415. I'm not saying it's good or bad...

But when you get into the area of "common sense", then it's really a short slide into profiling.

OK, so just for the sake of discussion, what sort(s) of people would we expect to be a threat?

[LibDemAlways]

419. How about taking a look at the individuals who boarded planes on 9/11 and

flew them into buildings? Where were they from? What was their age and gender? Not a 95-year-old retiree from Florida in the bunch. Go ahead and call it profiling. I really don't care.

[pipi_k]

426. Hey, I don't care either way, really...

If it takes profiling, then so be it.

But what I find sort of frustrating is that people seem to want it both ways.

They think age/racial profiling is ageist and racist...but they don't want everyone treated the same way, either.

At least you had the honesty to say what the rest of them aren't.

[spooked911]

435. I agree as well

and common sense profiling says that very old white women are not going to be jihadists. Frankly, I doubt very elderly people of any color are going to be jihadists, and I also think 9/11 was a scam anyway, not even really done by jihadists.

[sabrina 1]

407. Did you forget the snark tag??

[nadinbrzezinski]

411. Profiling in an israelized airport

is not what you think. Yep, I got profiled the other day flying out of Mexico City... and?

I got profiled the last time around and since I hit a series of wickets I was given a once over... and? Nor was I surprised... I kind of expected it since I hit the wickets... sadly I do not expect TSA to have given me a once over if I hit the exact same wickets here. Oh and knowing a tad about security they should give me a once over, maybe a twice over... I just don't expect them to.

Now I will say this, yes, I could use an elderly woman to blow up a plane... it HAS happened... in Russia... two in fact, same flight... yep, they brought the plane down... so they were in their eighties. (One of the reasons we are now doing some of the insanity here to senior citizens by the way... like removing shoes, quick how many nations insist on removing shoes? Oh yes the US)

But in this case the simple and judicious use of an explosives sniffing dog would have taken care of the problem and far less intrusive, if you insist on this... FAR LESS intrusive... alas it is not as profitable as the theater. And yes, if she hit a certain number of wickets sure, USE THE DAMN DOG. And you can use the damn dog without really being obvious about it either.

[pipi_k]

418. Well, like I pointed out above...

It wouldn't always have to be explosives, which yes, might be sniffable by a dog.

Although I don't know how well a dog could smell them in a diaper full of urine, but I'll assume they could be detected by a good explosives K9.

But what about other items the airlines don't allow on board? Not a bomb...maybe a small weapon. Or maybe something the woman wanted that isn't allowed on board. If you let one person get by with "X" item, then it's not fair to take it away from everyone else.

So there are lots of other scenarios that don't involve explosives but might involve other prohibited items...

[LibDemAlways]

421. A determined terrorist doesn't have to sneak anything past

so-called "security." There are plenty of objects on the plane, provided by the airlines themselves, that could conceivably be used as weapons.

TSA is theatre to appease the masses that they are "safe." Life involves risk. No one is ever completely safe, and TSA, manned by a bunch of poorly trained, underpaid people is little more than a waste of taxpayer funds and a complete joke.

[pipi_k]

425. Well, I'll agree that it's all theater

meant to make us think we're "safe".

But it's here until people revolt in sufficient numbers.

Which probably isn't going to happen anytime soon. If at all.


I'm not at all sure that there's a totally 'fair' way to do this.

If common sense says that certain people aren't dangerous, then that means that certain people ARE.

Which then leads to the probable issue of age/racial profiling, which doesn't make most DUers very happy, either.

[nadinbrzezinski]

427. We flew first class to Hawaii less than two months ago

let me share two items the Airline provided to us, that is in the forbidden list.

China\glass... lovely potential weapons

Metal and sharp knife.

Did I mention some of the 911 kidnappers flew first class?

There is more I don't need to take over the plane... if my objective is to terrorize, there are some lovely targets before I get to the damn checkpoint.

It is theater... and it is meant to keep people afraid. I have told this to a couple TSOs to their face... there are so many fracking holes it is not even funny.

[Rex]

424. Amazing ain't it!? All the little authoritarians defending the poor ol' TSA.

That was my first thought too...USE A DAM DOG WTF IS WRONG WITH SUPPOSED PROFESSIONALS!?

Have they all lost their collective minds?

[nadinbrzezinski]

428. It is management not rank and file

the objective is not security... if it was... it would look very different.

[Rex]

429. It is a huge experiment in social engineering.

[malaise]

410. I agree with you 100%

It's demeaning and disgusting - and fugging unforgivable.