It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
TSA asks 95 years old woman, in wheelchair, battling leukemia to remove adult diaper
page: 19share:
This sort of Stuff Damages the USA. The last time i flew to USA i was given such a rude hard time i refused to complete the flight. The arrogance of
security was beyond what i was prepared to tolerate. I simply refused to board.
This Kind of Situation is practiced internationally, forget about just in the USA.
The Damage it does to America is Huge.
I fortunately dont fit a profile, but was given shocking treatment. Others that fit profiles well, , , why they bother to continue is beyond me.
There are two things that are worth watching when you travel,, watch the flight screening to USA and India.
The both give a good laugh.
Makes me sad, but until this changes America is off my travel list.
This Kind of Situation is practiced internationally, forget about just in the USA.
The Damage it does to America is Huge.
I fortunately dont fit a profile, but was given shocking treatment. Others that fit profiles well, , , why they bother to continue is beyond me.
There are two things that are worth watching when you travel,, watch the flight screening to USA and India.
The both give a good laugh.
Makes me sad, but until this changes America is off my travel list.
reply to post by Vitchilo
maybe the tsa employee realizes finally that the war on terror is a load of crap , and is logically looking for it in a diaper?
maybe the tsa employee realizes finally that the war on terror is a load of crap , and is logically looking for it in a diaper?
Originally posted by jfj123
Originally posted by Dilligaf28
reply to post by jfj123
You have the right to use another's private property in whatever way you see fit? In that case I'm coming over later to use your house for a little while hope you are ready!
Not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that I should have the right to reasonable privacy while traveling anywhere in any fashion.
A private business cannot detain and search anyone without due cause. Either can the government.
You are not being detained and searched without due cause if the owner of the airlines wishes to insure the safety of the passengers as well as their property; you are being searched prior to being granted access to their property. A person has the right to protect their property. For instance should you wish to travel to my home or across my land you would have to submit to a search should I require it. If you chose not to be searched you would have to find another route. The same goes for the airlines. If you do not want to be searched then you can always find another means of travel. If you wanted to make your own rules you could buy your own airplane.
Terms of usage must be both legal and reasonable regardless of whether or not the entity is private or public. As example, an airline cannot post a rule that says all women can be raped if they decide to fly that particular airline. An airline cannot post a sign that says, "we may decide to remove one of your kidneys".
Thats a bit of a red herring. Of course the airline cannot say we may decide to remove one of your kidneys because there is no reason that someone's kidneys could pose a threat to the airline's customers or property.
The private industry is not outside or above the law. If that were the case, there would be no worker rights and no oversight by any agency.edit on 27-6-2011 by jfj123 because: (no reason given)
Private industry has the right to restrict access to its property or attach stipulations to accessing that property.
Originally posted by kro32
They use children suicide bombers and they would have no problems getting an old woman to do this knowing she would not be checked.
I'm glad to op is so concerned about a minor delay for an old woman and has 0 concern for the family's and individuals aboard the aircraft.
Stop fighting terrorism with terrorism, Mr. Pro-Stripsearcher. You using government force to violate my right against search without probable cause is terrorism and I don't appreciate it one bit. In fact, you belong in prison with the rest of the terrorists if you support such violent aggression against me. Stripping off my clothes without probable cause is very violent aggression. Its not as bad as planting an IED in my path but it definitely approaches the ballpark.
A bomb can be hidden anywhere, Mr. Pro-Stripsearcher. The diaper itself could be plastic explosives. Thats why in the US we have what is called human rights, such as the right to be free from any search without a search warrant. I just looked through the constitution and it does not even give an exception for probable cause.
The fact is that you should have to produce a search warrant to be able to search me, even if you have probable cause. Are you claiming there is a greater than 50% chance that 95 year old woman in the diaper was a terrorist? No. But there is a 100% chance you are a terrorist if you are going to violate people's privacy rights or suggest to someone in office that they do such a thing.
edit on 28-6-2011 by civilchallenger because: (no
reason given)
Originally posted by Dilligaf28
You are not being detained and searched without due cause if the owner of the airlines wishes to insure the safety of the passengers as well as their property; you are being searched prior to being granted access to their property.
Wow you just don't get it.
First of all the owner of the airlines are not detaining and searching passengers. The government is.
Second, a private business does not have the right to stop and search you without cause. They are not law enforcement. As example, a Walmart employee cannot stop a customer without cause. It's simply not legal.
A person has the right to protect their property.
Not at the expense of another persons CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
In short, your rights end where mine begin.
For instance should you wish to travel to my home or across my land you would have to submit to a search should I require it.
Nope. You could not stop and search me. You don't have the authority. You can call the police and tell them someone is trespassing on your land (assuming you have no trespassing signs up and reasonably visible or other deterants such as a fence) but you only can detain me if there is immediate threat to yourself, family, etc..
If you wanted to make your own rules you could buy your own airplane.
Interesting you should say that. According to existing law, you can theoretically start your own airlines and "opt out" of the TSA security. The government says regardless of what the law says, you cannot opt out. That in and of itself is a violation of the governments own law.
Terms of usage must be both legal and reasonable regardless of whether or not the entity is private or public. As example, an airline cannot post a rule that says all women can be raped if they decide to fly that particular airline. An airline cannot post a sign that says, "we may decide to remove one of your kidneys".
Thats a bit of a red herring. Of course the airline cannot say we may decide to remove one of your kidneys because there is no reason that someone's kidneys could pose a threat to the airline's customers or property.
You don't know that. Maybe terrorists are considering implanting untraceable explosives in kidneys. Now of course all kidneys may pose a threat. So now according to your logic, it's ok to remove them.
Simply put, TSA is overkill and is nothing more than a gimmick to give people a false sense of security.
Pat downs should never be necessary unless the nation is at a point where martial law is declared.
Terrorists can easily use a city bus, train, stolen car, etc. pack it with explosives....I leave the rest to your imagination.
Pat downs should never be necessary unless the nation is at a point where martial law is declared.
Terrorists can easily use a city bus, train, stolen car, etc. pack it with explosives....I leave the rest to your imagination.
We are over 200 thousand times more likely to die in an automobile accident than act of terrorism.
Every one of us is more likely to be killed at the hand of our own government by a lawful and sanctioned lethal injection than we are to be by an act of terrorism.
We could completely disban the TSA, shut down all the info-centers, rip up the Patriot Act, cut out the surveillance nonsense and our chances of being anywhere near a terrorist attack would still be astronomical.
Anyone who believes these measures are making us statistically safer is a fool. Anyone who believes we would be experiencing rampaging explosive horrors without these measures is a fool.
Evey poster who excuses this structure as a "necessary evil" is a damn fool.
Every one of us is more likely to be killed at the hand of our own government by a lawful and sanctioned lethal injection than we are to be by an act of terrorism.
We could completely disban the TSA, shut down all the info-centers, rip up the Patriot Act, cut out the surveillance nonsense and our chances of being anywhere near a terrorist attack would still be astronomical.
Anyone who believes these measures are making us statistically safer is a fool. Anyone who believes we would be experiencing rampaging explosive horrors without these measures is a fool.
Evey poster who excuses this structure as a "necessary evil" is a damn fool.
Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
We are over 200 thousand times more likely to die in an automobile accident than act of terrorism.
Every one of us is more likely to be killed at the hand of our own government by a lawful and sanctioned lethal injection than we are to be by an act of terrorism.
We could completely disban the TSA, shut down all the info-centers, rip up the Patriot Act, cut out the surveillance nonsense and our chances of being anywhere near a terrorist attack would still be astronomical.
Anyone who believes these measures are making us statistically safer is a fool. Anyone who believes we would be experiencing rampaging explosive horrors without these measures is a fool.
Evey poster who excuses this structure as a "necessary evil" is a damn fool.
I dont know if they're fools or just cowards. Sometimes hard to tell the difference
In any case, FREEDOM has risks.
If someone wants to be safe, they need to be locked in a cage, naked, 24/7 and be surrounded by police. No thanks, I'll take my chances.
I agree FREE OR DIE !
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
Originally posted by verylowfrequency
Whether TSA or not it seems you still retained the lying training or your brainwashing hasn't worn off yet..
I was not a screener, I was a ramp supervisor running an airside.
There is no brainwashing involved, safety/security is always a primary concern, and anything that you feel may be an issue is to be pointed out and checked. If a situation feels incorrect to the people who work out there on a daily basis, then chances are good that there is something wrong with it. This same ideal applies to many jobs, not just those at airlines.
Originally posted by verylowfrequency
There has never been any waiver or agreement in regards to being questioned by law enforcement.
Uhm…
Wrong…
It’s called a “Contract of Carriage”, and it’s a contract between you and the airlines that you agree to when you buy your ticket. The contract basically states what the airlines will do if you agree to follow their rules. I recommend that you read it the next time you buy a ticket.
Here are the pertinent parts of the “Contract of Carriage” for Continental Airlines as an example:
Contract of Carriage
RULE 20 SCREENING OF PASSENGERS AND BAGGAGE
Passengers and/or their baggage are subject to security screening, including but not limited to, security profiling, physical pat-downs and inspections, x-ray screening, manual bag searches, questioning of Passengers, and use of electronic or other detectors or screening or security devices, in the sole discretion of the government, airport or CO, and with or without the Passenger’s presence, consent or knowledge. Neither CO nor its employees or agents is liable for any damage, loss, delay (including refusal to transport), confiscation of property, injury or other harm relating to or arising out of security screening or Passenger's failure to submit to or comply with such security screening.
RULE 21 REFUSAL TO TRANSPORT
CO shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons:
A) Breach of Contract of Carriage – Failure by Passenger to comply with the Rules of the Contract of Carriage.
B) Government Request or Regulations – Whenever such action is necessary to comply with any government regulation, security directive, or any governmental request for emergency transportation in connection with the national defense.
D) Search of Passenger or Property – Whenever a Passenger refuses to submit to electronic surveillance or to permit search of his/her person or property.
E) Proof of Identity – Whenever a Passenger refuses on request to produce identification satisfactory to CO or who presents a Ticket to board and whose identification does not match the name on the Ticket. CO will require identification of persons purchasing Tickets and/or presenting a Ticket(s) for the purpose of boarding the aircraft.
These rules have been in place LONG before 911.
If you refuse to complete your side of the contract by giving security a hard time, the airlines has every right to refuse to allow you to fly and to refund your money, as they are the aggrieved party and you are in breach of the contract you agreed to.
Originally posted by verylowfrequency
Once law enforcement becomes involved they have to abide by Constitutional rules and must read your Miranda rights and have probable cause for such a search or questioning.
You waive certain Constitutional rights when you accept the “Contract of Carriage” that is why the security areas are out at the terminals, and not in the main part of the airport, which is considered public property. The Terminals or Airsides are private property either owned by, or leased by each individual airline, and are considered secure areas. The ramp, tower, FAA areas, runways, etc are considered secured federal areas akin to a military base. When you break the laws on Federal land in a secured area, you fall under the same type of jurisdiction that you would if you were caught on a military base, for example. That is why they maintain their own individual police forces of federal airport police, and not local police.
Originally posted by verylowfrequency
The fact that you've sought out being a moderator at ATS tells us that you're still seeking out positions where you can exert control over others.
First off, as most long time members here can tell you. No one "seeks" to become a Moderator, in order to become a one you are selected, and asked by the existing staff.
As to the rest of the accusation, I was a ramp supervisor, not a TSA agent/screener, I did not deal with or have control over the public unless they acted up or got caught in secured areas. I assumed that the mention above of Airfreight would have been a hint that I was not a passenger screener of any type, as passenger screeners don’t deal with, or know the first thing about what to do with airfreight. I dealt mainly with the handling of aircraft and running of a terminals ramp areas, but to be a supervisor you have to be familiar with all aspects of how an airlines runs, for example: security, hazmat, firefighting, load and balance, fueling, cabin service, aircraft ramp operations, etc…
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
reply to post by jfj123
I'm not good at quoting quotes of quotes and such so I'm just gonna break this down in a clean format.
As to the airlines power to search: That has been addressed in a post above this response. You enter into a contract agreeing to be searched when you purchase the ticket. Therefore they do have the right to search you. If you do not want to give consent to the search then you do not buy the ticket.
Your rights do not end where mine begin if we are on my private property. There is no legal mechanism which would compel me to grant you passage, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to assemble, the right to carry a firearm, or any other Constitutionally protected rights while on my private property. If you choose to violate my property without my consent I can, depending on the State law, extricate you, detain you until police arrive, or even go so far as to shoot you for trespassing. I would welcome you to test the voracity of my statement should you so desire.
I have the right and the authority to search you before you come onto my property. I have the right and the authority to deny you usage of my property. I have the right and authority to remove you from my property at any time for any reason. I have this right in my home and I have this right in my business.
If it looks, smells, and swims like a red herring it probably is a red herring.
I'm not good at quoting quotes of quotes and such so I'm just gonna break this down in a clean format.
As to the airlines power to search: That has been addressed in a post above this response. You enter into a contract agreeing to be searched when you purchase the ticket. Therefore they do have the right to search you. If you do not want to give consent to the search then you do not buy the ticket.
Your rights do not end where mine begin if we are on my private property. There is no legal mechanism which would compel me to grant you passage, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to assemble, the right to carry a firearm, or any other Constitutionally protected rights while on my private property. If you choose to violate my property without my consent I can, depending on the State law, extricate you, detain you until police arrive, or even go so far as to shoot you for trespassing. I would welcome you to test the voracity of my statement should you so desire.
I have the right and the authority to search you before you come onto my property. I have the right and the authority to deny you usage of my property. I have the right and authority to remove you from my property at any time for any reason. I have this right in my home and I have this right in my business.
If it looks, smells, and swims like a red herring it probably is a red herring.
reply to post by Dilligaf28
I don't have anything against your comment really, but I wanted to elaborate on my thoughts...
I agree the airlines can contractually obligate you to be searched, however I still don't think that federal employees should be the ones doing the searching. As far as I am aware, TSA agents are federal employees (maybe I'm wrong?). It is my opinion that somewhere between the 4th and 10th amendments the TSA's employees should not be allowed to search anybody (regardless of implied consent, contract of carriage, etc.) OR the TSA should not exist at all.
That is how I read the constitution... People can quote this judgement at that court til they are blue in the face, but it won't change my interpretation of the actual words I see in the constitution. And that is my real issue... interpretations vary based on perspective and my perspective is that where we are is not where we should be.
I don't have anything against your comment really, but I wanted to elaborate on my thoughts...
I agree the airlines can contractually obligate you to be searched, however I still don't think that federal employees should be the ones doing the searching. As far as I am aware, TSA agents are federal employees (maybe I'm wrong?). It is my opinion that somewhere between the 4th and 10th amendments the TSA's employees should not be allowed to search anybody (regardless of implied consent, contract of carriage, etc.) OR the TSA should not exist at all.
That is how I read the constitution... People can quote this judgement at that court til they are blue in the face, but it won't change my interpretation of the actual words I see in the constitution. And that is my real issue... interpretations vary based on perspective and my perspective is that where we are is not where we should be.
reply to post by xenthuin
Airport screeners were private security companies that were contracted by the airlines, after 911 the government needed to make sure that there was uniform procedures and training among them so they made them a government organization.
Regarding whether it’s the government, private person, or company who administers the search, the government is an entity the same as any person or business, and they can enter into contracts with individuals that allow them to violate their rights. You enter into contracts with the government all the time, surrendering your constitutional rights in trade for various privileges, and probably don’t even realize it. The most common is your driver’s license, where you contractually agree to allow them to take blood alcohol testing from you, which is why you are given the option to refuse and lose your license as a civil breach of contract rather then be charged with a criminal offence. You also surrender certain rights to the government when you get a fishing license, hunting permit, certain firearms permits, permits to have certain types of rare animals (such as birds of prey), etc. You contractually surrender rights to the government all the time.
Airport screeners were private security companies that were contracted by the airlines, after 911 the government needed to make sure that there was uniform procedures and training among them so they made them a government organization.
Regarding whether it’s the government, private person, or company who administers the search, the government is an entity the same as any person or business, and they can enter into contracts with individuals that allow them to violate their rights. You enter into contracts with the government all the time, surrendering your constitutional rights in trade for various privileges, and probably don’t even realize it. The most common is your driver’s license, where you contractually agree to allow them to take blood alcohol testing from you, which is why you are given the option to refuse and lose your license as a civil breach of contract rather then be charged with a criminal offence. You also surrender certain rights to the government when you get a fishing license, hunting permit, certain firearms permits, permits to have certain types of rare animals (such as birds of prey), etc. You contractually surrender rights to the government all the time.
reply to post by defcon5
I know... I'm not saying that I think things are different than they actually are, rather that they are different than the way they should be (in my opinion).
Edit: also, driver's/hunting/fishing (etc) licenses are with the state, no? That is, not the feds. Im sure there is another example with the Feds but I can't think of one at the moment.
I know... I'm not saying that I think things are different than they actually are, rather that they are different than the way they should be (in my opinion).
Edit: also, driver's/hunting/fishing (etc) licenses are with the state, no? That is, not the feds. Im sure there is another example with the Feds but I can't think of one at the moment.
edit on 30-6-2011 by xenthuin because: Addition
I heard that a bunch of them are now suffering from cancer. Karma is a female dog ain't it.
If they search a granny.... Americans go nuts. If they fail to search a granny and the granny blows up.... along with a few hundred Americans on a
flight.... Americans scream "Why did TSA fail to search everyine"? They can't win! We need a system of Predictive Profiling.... the system that is
used by the isralies. period!!!!
If I read of one more person who complied and then complains about how they never imagined 'this could happen on American soil', I'm going to
scream. You sheep need to start standing up and refusing. Or else you have no one but yourselves to blame. Let them arrest you. What's the big
deal? MIss the flight. Do what you have to do or else stop complaining.
Originally posted by kigamboni
This sort of Stuff Damages the USA. The last time i flew to USA i was given such a rude hard time i refused to complete the flight. The arrogance of security was beyond what i was prepared to tolerate. I simply refused to board.
This Kind of Situation is practiced internationally, forget about just in the USA.
The Damage it does to America is Huge.
I fortunately dont fit a profile, but was given shocking treatment. Others that fit profiles well, , , why they bother to continue is beyond me.
There are two things that are worth watching when you travel,, watch the flight screening to USA and India.
The both give a good laugh.
Makes me sad, but until this changes America is off my travel list.
the TSA gettin their rocks off as they're groping
hoping that they can arrest another dope fiend
or out of line intellectual mind
fear tactics leave the hapless blind
via footage featuring columbine
and 9/11
never mind the fact that you're more likely to die
from a boozed up driver than from an airplane lighting up the sky
i'd rather be blown to bits a free man
than live to have my bits be groped by a policeman's
free hand
over some hollow threats made in Afghanistan
I'm talking sense, not sh-t,
cause it's already hit the fan.
hoping that they can arrest another dope fiend
or out of line intellectual mind
fear tactics leave the hapless blind
via footage featuring columbine
and 9/11
never mind the fact that you're more likely to die
from a boozed up driver than from an airplane lighting up the sky
i'd rather be blown to bits a free man
than live to have my bits be groped by a policeman's
free hand
over some hollow threats made in Afghanistan
I'm talking sense, not sh-t,
cause it's already hit the fan.
edit on 1-7-2011 by Onix Verumi because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-7-2011 by Onix Verumi
because: (no reason given)
new topics
top topics
-
Federal law trumps state and local law every time
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 13 hours ago, 16 flags
active topics
-
-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- ---TIME TO SHOW THE WORLD--- -Part- --44--
Dissecting Disinformation • 3382 • : 777Vader -
Federal law trumps state and local law every time
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 30 • : ADVISOR -
Elon Says It’s ‘Likely’ He Buys Tanking MSNBC
Political Ideology • 81 • : WeMustCare -
I thought Trump was the existential threat?
World War Three • 79 • : visitedbythem -
Well, here we go red lines crossed Biden gives the go ahead to use long range missiles
World War Three • 394 • : Xtrozero -
Joe Biden Dabs Away Tears at Farewell White House Dinner
Politicians & People • 25 • : RazorV66 -
A Mysterious Orb filmed over NYC by local news
Aliens and UFOs • 26 • : DaydreamerX -
Anyone like the Scorpions?
Music • 21 • : belkide -
Comcast dumping MSNBC
Mainstream News • 36 • : Kaiju666 -
Post A Funny (T&C Friendly) Pic Part IV: The LOL awakens!
General Chit Chat • 7831 • : DBCowboy