Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Not everything you read on the internet is true:

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 09:15 AM
Original message
Not everything you read on the internet is true:
Edited on Sat Oct-17-09 09:18 AM by hedgehog
The blog entry:

TSA Agents took my son

"My son was taken from me.

Taken.

My son was taken from me by the TSA agents at Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson airport yesterday.

He was taken away from me and OUT OF MY SIGHT because his pacifier clip went off when I carried him through the metal detector."

http://www.mybottlesup.com/tsa-agents-took-my-son /


TSA video:


http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2009/10/response-to-tsa-agents-...


Edit: The entire incident takes less than 10 minutes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
lamp_shade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 09:18 AM
Response to Original message
1. Saw this posted here yesterday by somebody.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. It was a hot and heavy post. I thought that more people would see it today if
I started a new post.

My kudos to those who linked to the TSA blog and informed us that the video tape was coming. My apologies because I went back through the thread and couldn't spot your name. (I'd spend more time on this, but the dogs want their walk!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lamp_shade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. I didn't post it... and I had no comment because I suspected it was weak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #5
12. I didn't mean to imply that I was taking umbrage with you.

:)

I was just trying to explain why I started a new thread. I know that it is poor etiquette to start a new thread on the same topic, but I think there was a separate issue to be raised here. The original thread focused on whether or not the TSA acted properly. I think what I'm getting at here is that if we take everyone's story at face value, we sometimes get all hot and bothered about something that is imaginary. In this case, every TSA agent got slimed by this woman's blog.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zorahopkins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 09:20 AM
Response to Original message
2. For Real?
Next I suppose you'll tell me that not everything I see on TV is true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Curtland1015 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 09:21 AM
Response to Original message
3. I'm sorry but I don't believe that...
:hide:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
6. WOW - Immediate credible transparency
I feel a little indignit they require me to take of my shoes but......

I figure if anyone is that interested in my smelly sneakers - so be it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. It's probably just a hobby with them....
Try to be tolerant.

mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #8
15. Just glad its not a Fetish with them
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iamjoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #6
17. LOL
if anyone is that interested in my smelly sneakers

One time my husband and I were waiting in line at the security checkpoint and I commented as to what a hassle it was to take off our shoes. He said I should feel bad for the TSA workers who had to stand there and smell feet all day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. I don't know what the protocols are today, but on one trip the
inspectors at a foreign airport had to keep telling the Americans they could leave their shoes on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tammywammy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. LOL!
I'm gonna have to ask the guys at work what they see when they hit the international airports. I have a couple of guys coming back from Munich today, I'll ask them on Monday. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #19
25. I'm a little disappointed that Americans are so readily conformist
and compliant with rules and regulations, but I guess I should not be surprised. Our education system does all it cen to encourage social conformity and submissiveness as a prelude to entering the work force.

mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #25
36. I think Americans follow rules and regulations because
WE make the rules. If an organization applies stupid rules, people protest and gripe until the rule gets changed.

I was thinking of this the other day while listening to Diane Rehm interview Captain Sullenberger about the forced landing of his US Airways Airbus A320 in the Hudson River. He had never met his co-pilot before, but both men worked together seamlessly because they followed protocol. When the flight attendant were told to prepare for a crash, they knew what to do and repeated their instructions to the passengers in unison . Once the plane hit the water and Captain Sullenberger gave the all clear, the flight attendants moved to evacuate the plane and most the passengers followed orders. Reportedly, one passenger did open a rear door that was underwater, allowing the plane to fill with water more quickly. Imagine what would have happened if people had pushed others out of the way to get out, if a couple of people had stopped to get their luggage out of the overheads.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orangepeel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #25
44. I've recently gone through security in Heathrow and Frankfort.. I couldn't see a difference
Except for the shoes. Frankfort seemed more concerned with liquids. They confiscated my husband's 8 oz. bottle of acne cream.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #44
64. god knows what he would have done with that.......nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ipaint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
7. Not being a flyer
What the hell is that box they left her in?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
myrna minx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 09:39 AM
Response to Original message
9. If by the "TSA took my baby away" (a long lost Ramones song?)
she meant that she securely placed him in the stroller that is right next to he along with her other possessions, then ok. :eyes: Wow. That video hardly matches her harrowing, breathless account. What is it with attention seeking parents this week?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tammywammy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. I liked the part about sneakily getting her cell phone in order to make two calls
one to her partner and another to her mom. Amazing that I didn't see that on the tape either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #13
21. I'm going to play the race card. How much of her anger was due
to the fact that she had to take orders from a black woman?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. Ohhh, nice angle!
I like it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tammywammy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #21
28. OH, excellent angle
Who knows, she probably just a person with an anxiety disorder (by her own admission) and freaked the hell out and wrote up a completely delusional blog post in order to attain sympathy from her readers.

I'm pulled for extra screening every single time I fly. Every SINGLE TIME. It's over and done with in 10 min, just like it was for this lady. And I've never had a problem with the TSA. They've all been nice and courteous and frankly I think they want to get it done just as quickly as I want to get it done.

We always have people from work out flying about for meetings, and I'll be sure to ask one of the guys coming back from Munich next week about his thoughts on security. I've never heard them bitch about the TSA once.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #28
35. She says she has xanex - it appears she does have issues
with anxiety as well as telling the truth.

That said, imho, the TSA was wrong in not letting her remove the obvious piece of metal, the pacifier clip, to walk back through the metal detector with her child sans the clip.

Also, I find it curious that the TSA blurred the wanding part of the video. Why would they need to do that?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #35
37. The video was blurred as a courtesy. According to the woman's
blog, at one point she unsnapped her jeans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #37
46. And that required the entire "wanding" to be blurred?
And sorry, I'd be pretty upset if they made me unzip my pants. They don't have a warrant for that type of search. Strip searches (requiring I undo my pants) require warrants and actual probable cause.

From a TSA inspector

Also something else you could do to help screeners and yourself. During the hand wanding process you may be asked to undo your belt, and then roll down the top of your pants over the zipper. Under no circumstances should you unbutton your pants and pull them down. I wouldn't bring this up it hadn't happen numerous times.

http://www.mysummervacation.com/2003_security_screener....
http://www.booklocker.com/books/1119.html


I'm rather disappointed that you find the fact that they asked her to unzip her pants okay.

As I said, the entire incident was unwarranted and handled poorly.

Yes, she exaggerated and was not truthful in her blog entry as the video reflects, but the TSA's handling of the situation was wrong, as is also reflected by the video. They should never have to blur a video to show transparency, now should they? That blurring should cause more alarm than the the blogger's tale.







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tammywammy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #35
45. I agree, if it was just the metal clip she should have been able to remove it
But considering the whole "THEY TOOK MY BABY" part was a flat out lie, who knows if the metal clip part is true. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. You mean to tell me the fact that the TSA released a video
that required a portion of the inspection to be blurred doesn't bother you?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tammywammy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. No, it doesn't
She said in her blog she had to unbutton her pants, they blurred it as a courtesy to her, not that anything would have shown. But if they hadn't blurred it, there would be plenty of people yelling "How dare they show a video with the button on that woman's jeans undone!!11!"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. I see. So in your opinioin, it is okay that they required she unzip her pants?
Edited on Sat Oct-17-09 12:52 PM by merh
That is not okay, you know that, don't you?

They cannot require a passenger to expose themselves in a public place like that, you do know that don't you?

Exposing oneself to facilitate a search is considered a strip search which requires a warrant and probable cause.

Damn - civil rights don't matter much to folks these days. How very sad.

Also something else you could do to help screeners and yourself. During the hand wanding process you may be asked to undo your belt, and then roll down the top of your pants over the zipper. Under no circumstances should you unbutton your pants and pull them down. I wouldn't bring this up it hadn't happen numerous times.

http://www.mysummervacation.com/2003_security_screener....
http://www.booklocker.com/books/1119.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tammywammy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #50
53. I suggest you write to the blogger and have her request the TSA release the video unblurred n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. That's not the point.
The TSA agent violated her rights requiring her to undo her pants and expose herself in such a nature that the video had to be blurred.

As a liberal/progressive/lefty, one would assume that the blatant civil rights violation would trouble you.

Guess not.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LibDemAlways Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #54
56. There are people on here who apparently think it's perfectly ok for
TSA to do whatever the hell it wants. If stopping a baby toting potential terrorist requires that she unzip her pants in public, well that's the price we have to pay for living in a "free" country.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #56
57. Christ, there were men all around and the area is open to the public
yet the video is so sensitive they blur it?

And there are missing seconds from the video. The footage is not continuous.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LibDemAlways Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #57
59. I noticed the missing seconds, too. Suspect TSA is only showing what it wants
Edited on Sat Oct-17-09 03:08 PM by LibDemAlways
the public to see. I wish they would broadcast the video of the 90 year old woman I watched them manhandle. And I certainly wouldn't mind if they broadcast the entire tape of my run in with them when they felt me up in public. Citizens have a right to see how these goons operate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #59
60. I hope the blogger gets an attorney.
Edited on Sat Oct-17-09 03:16 PM by merh
There is the 21 seconds missing from the time she failed the pass through until she is detained in the box. (Is that a legal detention? Is she being subjected to public ridicule and scrutiny without being afforded her due process rights? Why not just lock her in the stockade until they can get to her?)

Notice the white haired man come around from the back of the box and how she seems upset?

Then there is 19 seconds missing between the time she is allowed to leave the box until she is allowed to sit down. I would bet you money the bearded man that comes up to her as she is sitting down grabbed her baby from her during the 21 seconds off screen. She became upset and that is when the others rushed over to bring her the stroller and her things.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LibDemAlways Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. There was definitely more going on there than TSA was
willing to publicly admit. They rushed to do some pretty significant ass covering by getting their edited version of events out there.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. I agree.
That man coming from the "pass through" area to the "additional screening" area in advance of her is suspicious. His being so attentive adds to the suspicion.

And it does look like she was on the phone while in the box, she was doing a good bit of talking and hand gestures.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GirlinContempt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #57
66. It seems to me
Edited on Sat Oct-17-09 05:45 PM by GirlinContempt
that the missing seconds happened where cameras changed.... I could be wrong, I'll have to watch it again...

I don't know what the normal practices are there... here, whenever I beep a metal detector in the airport (which is every time) they just wand over me. The wand usually beeps for a clasp on my pants, my bra, and that's it, they don't even bother looking at those. They do it right in front of the detector, and then they just let me go. Whats with that box thing anyway? What's it for?

EDIT:

Damn, I really don't want to get in to a fight with you right now... but I gotta say, I did re-watch it. And it seems to me that the missing time is happening when the cameras change, as I expected. I re-read her story too... And her story reads like a fabrication. She herself explains the man who comes up to her:

The female TSA agent stood in front of me while I sat with Jackson and she continued to watch luggage come through the conveyor belt.

Maam, can someone please just search me so we can be on our way? We are going to miss our flight, I said.

The female agent then called an older gentleman, also a TSA agent over. The male TSA agent stood in front of me and said Im going to have to pat down your son.

With Jackson still sitting in my lap (he was being so good despite all of this chaos) I said ok and continued to hold on to my son, expecting the male TSA agent to start touching Jackson.

He then told me, Im going to have to pick him up to inspect him.


That is the point that apparently, he walked away with her child. She then claims to stand up, demand her son, get in an argument of some kind with the TSA agent, was fully searched by a tsa agent, used her phone (she wasn't on her phone in the cube, that was her asking people to search her), and then even some time after that the man brought her son back. There is no way that happened in 20 seconds. And, I find it hard to believe that they did take her child when it's not their policy and he would only be gone for 20 seconds, some of which HAD to be taken up in getting from point a to point b. The fact that next to nothing in her story matches the visual account makes me highly highly skeptical. I think the way airport security is handled and people are treated is an important issue if it's being done poorly or violates peoples privacy and security, but I don't think this is the woman to get behind.

Just what I think, after reading and watching.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #66
79. Wrong - there was no camera change - there were two cameras
They didn't just focus on this woman, they edited two videos together, well actually 3. The video form the camera at the original screening point.

The video from the second camera at the box.

The third video from the wanding area.


If you look at the top right corner at the beginning of the box video you will see that they did have a camera that could capture what on at the screening after she failed the first walk through. The 1st camera catches that.

I wonder if the clocks on the cameras are actually in sync. If they are not, more footage could be missing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GirlinContempt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #79
81. Generally, they are in synch
Edited on Sat Oct-17-09 10:22 PM by GirlinContempt
but I can't know for sure. So I won't say. ( I base this on other experiences with multiple cameras (including my local airport), not with this particular airport )

By camera change, I mean they went to a different camera. Which is what they did, right?

From what I can see, the camera at the box shows some of the screening area, but not all of it. I have no idea which line she passed through, nor does it really have anything to do with what I'm saying. As a whole, what I'm saying is the footage in no way vindicates her story, which was based around the horror of her son being taken from her while she waited and was searched. Although I just finished looking for a reply to my question (none yet) and I see she has posted a reply to the video claiming it is missing footage: http://www.mybottlesup.com/my-apologies

So, I'll with hold any further judgment on her story until there is more information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #81
85. No, they didn't go to a different camera.
They took video from three different cameras and spliced it together.

One camera records the occurrences at one location. The second at another and the third at another.

We don't know if there were other cameras that recorded other angles or that caught portions of this happening.

She was not targeted from the get go, she is just seen on the different cameras filming the various areas. There were other citizens that didn't pass through the initial stage without alarm or who were made to go to the third area for further inspection. Do you think there was a single camera on each one of those?

This is three different videos from three different cameras spliced together to tell a story the TSA wanted to be told. They may or not be the truth, it isn't complete and it is definitely edited.

It wouldn't hold up as evidence in a court of law, it has been manipulated.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GirlinContempt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #85
88. Sorry, that's what I meant by 'go to a different camera'
Edited on Sat Oct-17-09 10:45 PM by GirlinContempt
they took video from another camera to follow her progress, not that a camera was specifically following HER, just that those were the ones she passed. So, what I am saying is, the time loss happens when they stop using footage from one camera, and start using footage from another. Perhaps there were other cameras that caught the small portions between the ones used in the posted video. I don't know. Sorry, I should have been more clear. "Do you think there was a single camera on each one of those?" On each one of what, the different people? Of course not. There wasn't a specific camera on her, I never said so.

I already said that if she went to court, they could get the full footage. Or, maybe I didn't say exactly that, but that is what I meant to say anyway. See my last post to you before this one downthread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #88
89. It is just an assumption that all the cameras have the same time
What if camera one was off by 3 minutes and there was other video from that area that supports what she claims and when they reviewed it they thought "hot damn, we can cut that out and the times almost match up, no one will know the difference".

Let's say that the 3rd camera's clock was not set to the same time as the other two. What if all she said happened and was taped and they could cut it out and still have the footage link up with the other videos time, minus a few seconds.

Look at the majority of the posters in this thread. They assume the video is accurate as if it is continuous footage that caught the whole thing. They mock others for believing her at first glance yet they believe the video without question though it is missing time and there are gaps that don't make sense. (The switch from 1 to 2, just before she enters the box, she should have been visible in the background at the top right corner long before she showed up at the entrance of the box.)

And think about it - since it is obvious there was editing, if there was nothing improper or wrong about the wanding, why did they blur that video?

I just think the video is as suspicious as her blog version of events.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GirlinContempt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #89
90. Hey, I said I have no way of knowing if they have the same time
They could be synced (which I think is likely, but hell who knows and I wont assume) they could be off in favor of disbelief or off in favor of belief (meaning perhaps the cameras were off between 20-40 seconds, so the appearance of missing time is untrue. I'm not saying I think this, just that anything is possible).

I admit I had an immediate reaction to trust it, but mostly I just had an immediate reaction to trust the part where she is being scanned after placing her child in the stroller, and the child remains there until she finishes, takes her things and leaves. I didn't notice anything about it that made it appear to have footage removed, no strange jumps in crowd or background. She put the kid in there herself, but the story said she handed him to an officer before being scanned. However, maybe footage was removed. I don't know. I can't know.

I've said why I think maybe they blurred the wanding, but it's at best a guess. I don't know. I wasn't looking for anything about the wanding itself, just comparing what she said about her child to the video including the child. Again, who knows. I'll be interested to see if this woman takes this further and what comes out in the video footage. I think she would take it further if everything that she claims actually happened, as that would be wrong and goes against their own policies. I can't imagine just letting that go. We'll see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-18-09 12:12 AM
Original message
self delete
Edited on Sun Oct-18-09 12:14 AM by merh
delete dupe caused by weird glitch



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GirlinContempt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-18-09 12:14 AM
Response to Original message
92. I think some of it's lunacy on the other side too
I mean, a lot of people seemed to just believe her straight off... and some of the comments about the video being a total hoax seem pretty tinfoil-hatty to me. Meh, it'll probably all come out in the end. All kinds of people jump to conclusions about all kinds of things. I am really curious to find out the real truth :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-18-09 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #90
91. I'd have contacted a lawyer by now
I don't know if she has and as you say, we shall see.

I just read some of the comments and I am not alone in finding the video suspicious.

Granted, the majority are like posters here. The video is absolute proof and that is all they need to think the woman a loon.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GirlinContempt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-19-09 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #91
94. Instead of contacting a lawyer, she's contacting publishers
And, the TSA released even more videos on it: http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2009/10/response-to-tsa-agents-...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-19-09 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #94
95. Where did you read about her contacting publishers?
The video is still lacking.

They released more footage but it still is missing angels that should be there and time periods.

If they thought what they released was enough to prove her a liar, why release more.

And the blurring is still there with no explanation. Why a pat down, what gives them authority for that?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GirlinContempt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #95
97. She said it herself re: publishers
http://www.eyeonannapolis.net/2009/10/18/the-tsa-kidnap... /

She claims that her family and the TSA are working it out together. And, no amount of video is going to satisfy you. Frankly, I find it far, far more likely that an unstable person is making up a story than that the TSA are editing their videos in a way to exonerate them, as it would be way too easy for them to be caught and they would be in bigger shit than ever. At other times when the TSA *has* been in the wrong, they've released a statement about it and tried to sweep it under the rug.

I'm not going to go in to why they blurred it or why they patted her down. Best I can say to the blurring is I read on the comments of some blog (dunno where it is now, might be able to find it later) is they did it for her privacy, silly as it may sound. That isn't the issue. If she has a problem with that, if it was wrong, she can deal with it. What I'm talking about is her now obvious (to me) lie that a TSA agent took her son away from her while she was searched. She started a huge internet kerfuffle with this story, and it appears to be nothing more than attention-youknowwhatting. WHY anyone would do this is a mystery to me, but there it is. If she had just said that the TSA treated her unfairly, patted her down when they shouldn't, took too long, this wouldn't even be an issue. The issue is she had this extremely dramatic and overblown story about them basically abducting her son, which doesn't hold up. She HERSELF could provide evidence (such as her call log), but instead she went in to hiding, deleted her own posts, and posted a bizarre 'apology' in which she continued to make accusations but asked others to leave it alone (after she herself asked them to spread it around!). She's full of shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #97
100. Oh, so you post me someone's blog that interprets her blog and
the facts and you think that suffices? She said she is still pursing this. Whether or not she makes money from her story does not negate the story.

Go read her tweets that the blogger you reference posted - they actually support her. The blogger is trying to make her profanity make her look dirty but so what about it. She was fired up and she wanted to get the attention of the public - she sees it as a way to correct the procedures of a messed up government agency.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GirlinContempt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #100
101. I linked you to the screen shots
I read the screen shots. I didn't link you to it for the content of the post, just for the pictures it contained, as you asked about her contacting publishers. I don't think they support her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #101
102. They do.
As does the release of the additional video clips.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GirlinContempt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #102
104. "eh i can put it up on my blog,
but get paid if someone picks up my story... MUHAHAHAHAH ... pay me for my insanity!!!!"

That one stood out to me. But the others I don't think support her either. She wants to go 'way out with it', fine. I don't think that supports her at all. Or, if it does, it supports equally the idea that she's an attention seeker.

"I've contacted a lawyer to go after their lying asses" would be a lot more supportive to her case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 01:51 AM
Response to Reply #94
96. She did post a response
and an apology for not responding sooner to the TSA's response and the comments on her blog.

http://www.mybottlesup.com /

She addresses the video and claims that there are portions missing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GirlinContempt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #96
98. I read that, I posted that to you.
I know what she claims. It's bullshit. She's 'looking in to it'? Come on. Her site wasn't down due to traffic, as others have discovered, and though she claims to be working it out with the TSA and wanting others to leave it alone, she continues to tweet about it, and is the one who encouraged people to get all over it in the first place.

The idea that the TSA would edit the video (this assumes they have people what, just waiting around to cover their asses who're pros in video editing?) to cover their own asses, when they could just have easily made a statement and moved on, when doing something like that would be SO easy to find out and get them in WAY more trouble, just seems insane to me. Is this Nixons TSA? They superimposed a video of her son in his stroller in to the video of her being wanded?

She also claimed many things. I don't believe her. She says "ultimately who to believe is left up to you". Right. If that had happened to me, my child taken from me in that manner, and it was being covered up, and I was being treated like this, I wouldn't be backing down. I would be taking them to court, I would be demanding answers, I would be raising hell. Which is what she was trying to do with her first post, and what she claimed she would do. Now, she's handling it with the TSA and she's "moved on"?! Moved on from this supposedly horrific, traumatic ordeal that was essentially the kidnapping of her child, causing HIM trauma as well?! Bull. Shit. Her story was a lie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #98
99. You didn't post that link to me. I asked you for something
and you didn't provide it. All you provided was the TSA's response.

I don't think it bullshit and she said she is still pursuing it, though she is moving on (I supposed she should have said beyond it, past it, as to not let it be her focus.)

You read into her blog what you want, that is your right. But in so doing it appears you miss things, just as you miss thing taking the video released at face value.

And obviously you don't realize that it is not uncommon for government agencies to lie or edit video if they think they can get away with it.

You see this video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7Z4ub2YFZY

The sheriff and his staff first denied its existence, then when forced to admit that it did exist (by the court) they denied it showed anything that the plaintiff was entitled to. Only because the the Plaintiffs sued and wouldn't give up (the family of the deceased) was the prosecutor provided this information and was able to get indictments against the persons involved.


The video released wouldn't be allowed at trial as it has been manipulated and is missing clips.

The new clips released do support part of her story that was not reflected in the first video - the kind lady that had to be a mom who got her things for her and put them next to her as she sat and waited for the wanding. They also reflect that there is more footage that hasn't been released.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GirlinContempt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #99
103. I linked you to that post in her blog earlier.
Edited on Tue Oct-20-09 02:06 PM by GirlinContempt
Go back through my posts, it's there.

She said that she & her family are dealing with the TSA on this issue. Why would you deal with an agency that apparently edited video footage of them kidnapping your child?! I say it smells like total bullshit. And I just don't believe that the TSA has some video editing genius hanging around waiting for them to abduct children so they can tamper with videos and insert babies in to frames where they were not actually present. If I'm wrong, I'll eat my words and issue a full apology without condition.

A few other things she said were true, too. She was at the airport. She was pulled aside for screening. That doesn't mean the TSA stole her child. They released additional footage because people were complaining it wasn't enough. If this REALLY happened as she said it did, she should be taking them to court and having the full tapes presented and witnesses subpoenaed, as I've said all along. Personally, I doubt that'll happen, because I think it's a lie. I tried to suspend judgment, but I just can't. The whole thing seems to me to be a total attention seeking drama fest from someone self-admittedly unstable. None of her actions or statements seem to me like the reactions of a justified person, a person who has been traumatized and had her child traumatized. A person who wants this to never happen to anyone else. I'd be taking them to fucking court before I'd be looking for a publisher, that's for sure.

My grandmother, who has osteoporosis and is handicapped had a horrific ordeal when she and I were traveling together, and due to the negligence of the airline she ended up with a fractured hip. My LAST thought was posting about it online, or finding a publisher to spread it around (or cash in). My FIRST thought was of course taking care of my grandmother, obviously, but after that I was dealing with the airline, I contacted a lawyer in case I found we needed to take it further, and other appropriate agencies. I was so incredibly outraged, upset and shocked that this had happened. The negligence and incompetence surrounding the situation was shocking, it went against the airlines own policies. I was fortunate enough to be able to deal with them and not have to take it further. But, I probably could have written an expose piece about it and got some cash. That was the LAST thing on my mind. If they had taken footage of the instance and doctored it, I would have been screaming my head off, filing a lawsuit, and doing everything in my power immediately to rectify the situation and expose them. And I would not be trying to settle with them, as they would have proved themselves despicable and untrustworthy. Nothing about this womans situation is ringing true to me. We're two different people, this woman and I, but that's how I feel.

And I also think it's complete bullshit that the kind lady 'had to be a mom', but that's another story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #103
105. I've already detailed the problems with the video and the
video clips that have been released.

Just because you don't like the blogger doesn't mean she isn't telling the truth. The fact that you have made some emotional connection to this story, as is evident from your posts about what you wouldn't do only supports the fact that you are not being objective.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GirlinContempt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #105
106. And I've told you that I don't believe
Edited on Tue Oct-20-09 03:01 PM by GirlinContempt
they were altered to that extent. That is why I think she's lying, not because I "don't like her", which is silly. I don't know this person.

I read the story with my usual skepticism, heightened by the videos then released. I don't think most people are objective, and I don't really care that I'm not. She threw it out there in to the internets, not a court of law. We have to judge and assess situations as they come. Yes, I had a personal experience with a problem in an airport (well, biggest problem was on the actual airplane), I wouldn't call it an emotional connection to her story, just a comparison of reaction. I tried to suspend judgment, and I did for a while, but the additional information from her and the TSA makes me believe she's lying. You, or anyone else, don't have to agree with me. I don't expect people to hear that and say "ALY says she's lying so it MUST be true". If I'm wrong, I'm wrong and I'll own it. Frankly, I don't even know why I'm still posting about it because I don't even care that much. I do that a lot though, keep coming back to things and continuing conversations even though they aren't really that important (important to me personally, I'm sure it's very important to her and others involved).

It's ok that we don't agree. We don't have to. You can think she isn't lying, or wait to find out more, or think the TSA is up to no good, or whatever you want. The animosity about something so completely irrelevant isn't worth it, who cares what one person or another really thinks about this blog post? I shouldn't even have posted about it as much as I did, it isn't worth it. Initially, I was curious about it, and if/when the whole thing actually comes to light 100% for sure, I'll probably be curious enough to read it. But that's where it ends for me as of now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #106
107. You read her blog with skeptism though you are not skepitcal
of the TSA's responses and/or motives?

Guess you have never been involved in efforts to litigate claims against the government. I'm jaded, I've seen the lengths they go to as they try to protect themselves from the truth, as they try to keep their image shiney and perfect, as they dodge responsibility and scrutiny.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GirlinContempt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #107
108. Sorry, I should have said
I read it all with skepticism.

I've not been involved in any litigation against the government. We each have our own perspective, can we not part amicably on this? :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #108
109. Of course we can part amicably
Disagreeing on some issue does not mean there are hard feelings.

This place would suck if everyone agreed with everyone else.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GirlinContempt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #109
110. Good good
Some people on DU will hate you for disagreeing with them. Not that i think you're that silly, I just like to be sure I'm not stepping in to a hornets nest the next time we interact ;)

I wouldn't mind getting your opinion on something totally unrelated, mind if I PM you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #110
111. I've noticed a lot of that silliness.
Seems like a lot of effort keeping up with folks who don't see everything the way you see it, doesn't it?

Go ahead and pmail, I've never been shy about giving opinions, they aren't always right but that has never stopped me from mouthing off.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GirlinContempt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #111
112. Sent
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #112
113. reply sent.
:hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #56
58. My mistake - the blog says she had to unbutton her jeans.
This is done so the TSA agent can make sure that the wand is going off because of the button and not because of something behind the button.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #58
63. Then why did the TSA blur the image if the image was just that
simple. And citizens are not required to unbutton their pants, merely to roll them down. I provided a link to support that in a previous post.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GirlinContempt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #63
67. Well, I think I'll ask them why on their blog
because you can still basically see everything that happens. She doesn't appear to remove any clothing, something is taken off her at one point and put on a table, I think at the point she rolls up her pant legs. I don't know why it's blurred, cause I don't find it hard to see whats going on while that is on it, so whats the point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #67
68. If you get an answer please let me know.
How many people ran the wand over her? How many did you count?

And if the portion was not sensitive why was it blurred? If it was so sensitive it had to be blurred why was the wanding performed in public?

The blurring is an editing - there is missing time and the video is without sound.

It is not as transparent as the TSA claim it to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GirlinContempt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #68
69. I counted one for the majority
it appeared there was a second at one point, but that was harder to tell if that's they were doing but it was only for a short time. Wait, nope, just one. The person I thought might be part of the search was standing at that counter thing.

I already said what I think about the missing time... I don't get the blurring, esp. as it doesn't appear that anything happened that needed to be blurred.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #69
72. You can't tell, it is blurred.
Tell me, did you notice that they had her take a leg brace off?

Tell me what went on after the TSA agent put down the wand and continued to move around the woman?

As I said, the video has been edited. The blur added is evidence of that.

I find it odd that what happened between the time she was at the conveyor belt to the time she had to go in the box was cut out of the video. The is not a blind spot for the video cameras. You can see the area she would have been in in the video as she is in the box.

I think her blog was an exaggeration but I also think the TSA has not been as transparent as they claim.

I also have issues with the box and with the physical touching of citizens and the need to blur the video during the wanding.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GirlinContempt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #72
75. You can tell, actually, that it was only one.
Edited on Sat Oct-17-09 07:25 PM by GirlinContempt
Well, correction, I can tell. I'd put myself at 99% sure, personally. The same person can be seen standing, facing away from the woman when the blur comes off. I have to take my knee brace off for airport security once, I did see her take hers off. Thats the thing I saw come out from under her pants. I dunno why I did, I don't remember (have to take it off)

The only editing I see is camera changes and adding a blur *shrug* if the womans story is true, she can take them to court. There are ways for them to get the footage as it is (if this isn't as is) and to tell if it's been edited. You can only see part of the area when the 'box' shot is up, and 20 seconds is lost in that.

I think her blog was an outright fabrication. I understand having problems with the TSA for other reasons, and disliking the way they handle people and situations, and having issues with their procedures. I'm not defending them, and I don't know enough about them personally to say much about them. But this woman, imo, is full of crap. That's all I'm responding to here, her story. I'm lucky I haven't flown anywhere in the US since this whole thing started with increased security, because I've heard some bad things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #75
78. I don't think it was a total fabrication
I do think it was a huge exaggeration.

You should go look at up the term edit - you will see that the video was edited (even a slight edit is still an edit).

The lady TSA agent conducted a pat down when she put the wand down. That is not allowed.

Guess we here in the US do have more rights than you guys. I hope we keep them.

I'd get a lawyer to demand the full video and an apology from the TSA. The immediate release of an edited video that contains their blurs and missing footage is not total transparency as they claim.

They violated her rights in a couple of different ways.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GirlinContempt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #78
80. You're right, it's edited.
Edited on Sat Oct-17-09 10:48 PM by GirlinContempt
I said "The only editing I see is camera changes and adding a blur". I didn't say it wasn't edited. I guess part of it was reading other comments elsewhere about the video being a fabrication etc and I put the two together. But I didn't deny that adding the blur was a form of editing. And, I said if her story IS true, meaning further editing took place, she should take them to court. They can get the full video. I have a suspicion that they blurred it for some kind of security reason, which is ridiculous, but so much of what's done in the name of 'security' is. I'm currently checking back to see if anyone has explained why it was blurred, cause I don't get it. I'm just guessing. What about that is wrong?

I wouldn't say you have any more rights than we do. I don't know where you get that from. I am not familiar with what the TSA is and is not allowed to do, only what I've heard, tidbits here and there. Again, if they went beyond their rights, that's wrong. If they have policies and procedures that violate peoples rights and dignity, that is wrong. But what I read of her story was her outrage about her child being taken from her for a period of time while she was searched and forced to wait. That is not what I saw happen, and thus why I call her story a fabrication. If other wrongdoing took place, and that was what her blog entry was about I wouldn't have any qualms about it. I agree, if she feels the video has been changed to alter the facts she should do something about it. But, she has not so far said anything about it and has only withdrawn her blog (excepting that entry) and removed all comments. She has not refuted the video. And so, that's where I'm coming from. Again, I am not defending the TSA or any actions of theirs which impinged on any ones rights. If her complaint had been about things they did that were unconstitutional or against policy specifically, I would have looked it up or asked someone about it before bothering to comment. All I'm commenting on is the HUGE difference between her panic ridden story, and the video. That's all.

I'm not going to defend her story because there may have been other wrong doing. I would if that's what her post was about, I would if someone asked me if it is right for them to do stuff like that I and I know that it is not, but that isn't what this was about.


EDITED: I guess I miss-spelled ridiculous and it was accidentally changed to meticulous, which is not what I meant to say above "I have a suspicion that they blurred it for some kind of security reason, which is ridiculous"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #80
84. I'm not defending her
I am challenging the transparency and the practices of the TSA.

Their video is not transparent. It is not the proof everyone has accepted it to be.

I said her blog was a huge exaggeration, that is not the same as saying I believe her side or that she totally made things up.

I love how folks say "don't believe everything you read" while believing an edited video released to take the heat off of an agency.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GirlinContempt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #84
86. Ok, then I don't disagree with you.
I think mostly this has just been confusion. I admit that there was some editing in the way you describe, but from what I saw it seems to pretty well disprove her story. However, she claims it is even more edited than it appears to be, so I'll wait and see what happens. It's possible, I just don't think it's likely. But I'm open to it.

I think people are more likely to believe the video because it's something they can actually *see*, and at least from my watching it, no *large* chunks are obviously missing (that doesn't mean 100% for sure that they are NOT missing, just that they don't APPEAR to be from what we can easily ascertain). That, and seeing her child sitting in the stroller while she is being searched I think is pretty encouraging to people to believe it to be true and her to be false.

But, I don't dispute that there could be more going on. And I don't dispute it isn't 100% proof. And I don't dispute that the TSA practices are not what they should be. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GirlinContempt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #50
65. She never said she had to pull them down
Edited on Sat Oct-17-09 05:29 PM by GirlinContempt
she just said she was asked to unbutton her jeans. It doesn't appear, even with the blurring, that she ever pulled them down. Some people might not be able to roll them down without unbuttoning them... my sister would be one of those people for sure heh heh
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 09:42 AM
Response to Original message
10. Funny, I went into the court house a few weeks ago with a knife in my pocket
same as I have been carrying for about 50 years. The guards made me fill out a form and kept it for me and I got it back when I left, no problem.

mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #10
16. I'm not sure what you are saying; your experience sounds very
reasonable.

I think people need to recall Stephen Tyrone Johns, the guard at the Holocaust Museum who was killed why manning a check point. A lot of people think of the inspectors at check points as overpaid idiots, but they are in fact risking their lives to protect us. They don't always get it right, but they try.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #16
24. Sorry I wasn't clear - It went smoothly and was no problem for anyone -
last time I went there, there was no checkpoint, and I habitually carry a pocket knife. There was no alarm bell, or terrible things happening, it was just routine. My pacemaker caused more trouble than the knife - had to be scanned by hand.

mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
11. She lost me when she said she was in a hurry...
because her flight left in 45 minutes. If I'm at the metal detectors by 45 til, I consider myself early.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iamjoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #11
18. I'm The Opposite
If I'm not going through the metal detectors by an hour til, I'm anxious about missing my flight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TicketyBoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #11
33. Well, if it happened
that she was stuck in the box, and nobody was showing any interest in getting her out of that box and on her way, she would have had no way of knowing how much longer she was going to have to wait. I'd have been nervous and wondering, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GirlinContempt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #33
52. She was in there for less than sixty seconds before she started to get agitated.
She was in there for a total of less than two minutes. Sure, you don't know how long you'll be in there, but getting upset about it that quickly is silly. Once you've been in there maybe 5 minutes and you know NOTHING, fine. But like, 45 seconds? Come. On.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
14. The TSA and the DHS are fascist organizations
and are distinctly un-American
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LibDemAlways Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #14
31. Agreed.
For every "hoax" (if that's what this was) there are who knows how many nightmarish encounters with these goons. Smart security is one thing TSA knows nothing about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
22. Will any of the DUers that berated anyone who DARED to question this story apologise?
I'm not holding my breath. I will file this one away and use it the next time I take a "Lets wait and see what really happened before we pass judgment" stance.

Why can we not contact the LIAR that posted this fake story at www.mybottlesup.com anyway?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ipaint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #22
27. That funny.
Apologizing for not waiting to get the full story before passing judgment. Two words- Bad teeth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #27
29. Dont even try it!
Apples and oranges. And you can try to misconstrue my comments all you want. I'm done with that thread, maybe, but if you want to keep at it, lets take it back to that one, ok?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
26. The mother lied.
Edited on Sat Oct-17-09 10:55 AM by TexasObserver
Unsubstantiated claims should be taken with a grain of salt.

I think TSA is generally terrible, but she had to know there was video. So she's dumb as well as being a big liar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LibDemAlways Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 11:15 AM
Response to Original message
30. Where is the proof that the woman in the video and the woman on the
blog are one and the same? Why should I take TSA's word for it?

The fact is TSA does engage in routine harrassment of the public. I have posted my own story here several times of having my bra felt up in full view of everybody at Sea-Tac after I indicated to the screeners that metal in my ankle from an old injury had apparently set off an alarm. I showed the screener my six inch scar and invited him to wand it. Instead he called a female screener over to feel me up. It was ridiculous. While this was happening an elderly Alzheimers patient in a wheelchair was having her shoes yanked off, was hoisted out of the chair, and wanded while her daughter, who wasn't allowed to get too close, was pleading with them to stop. Those sorts of tactics don't do TSA any favors.

It's common sense to assume that if someone was determined to cause havoc aboard an aircraft, that individual would be very familiar with TSA procedures and would do everything possible to get by them without incident. Roughing up old ladies makes no one safer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #30
40. Because if it wasn't the same woman, their disinfo could be blown away in seconds
Bureaucracies are clumsy sometimes, but organizing a serious disinformation campaign (1) is a career killer for whoever gets caught doing it, and (2) would take a lot longer to orchestrate than this next-day debunking would allow for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LibDemAlways Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. All I see is that an anonymous blogger posted a TSA horror story.
TSA responded with a video purported to be of the blogger. Video doesn't match story. Woman in video is being singled out by TSA for a thorough search. No indication of why. Woman in video looks to be complaint. TSA believes this is the woman in question. It may well be. If so, she wasn't truthful.

None of this demonstrates that TSA is competent to conduct "smart" security that keeps the public safe. It only shows that TSA is concerned about its image and that TSA personnel, do indeed, single out people for searches that require blurring on the video.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GirlinContempt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #30
87. She admits it's her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
32. I never take TSA horror stories at face value.
Edited on Sat Oct-17-09 11:20 AM by MineralMan
Or other "government" horror stories, for that matter. All to often, the person telling the story has some ax or another to grind and has exaggerated things beyond belief.

I no longer fly that often. A couple of times a year these days. Once you know the drill, it's really not that much of a hassle. My wife and I pack for it, with the toiletries in the checked luggage and nothing in carry-on that will bother anyone.

We wear step-in shoes, and I have empty pockets long before I go through the security line, having transferred all that crap into a pocket of my jacket or laptop case. My belt used to set off the alarm, so I put that in there, too.

I know in advance that I need my boarding pass and ID when I get to the security line, so I have them out and in my shirt pocket. So, by the time I get to the front of the line, The laptop is out of the bag, since I know I have to do that. When I get to the conveyor belt, it goes in a bin with my shoes. The carry-on goes on the belt, along with my jacket, if I have one and I walk through. I have not set off the alarm for over four years. My bags never get a secondary screening, since there's nothing in them that looks like anything but what it is.

On the other side, I reverse the process and go to my gate, get on the plane and go to my destination. The security screening thing takes just a few minutes, and isn't all that much of a hassle.

Generally, though, I see some folks who have trouble with this process. Maybe they're folks who don't fly, except on rare occasions, or maybe they're just stupid. Maybe they can't read the many signs at the airport or they're deaf. I don't know. But, they've got jumbo shampoo bottles, game consoles (just like computers, they have to come out), keys in their pockets, along with gobs of change, and belly-cover belt buckles.

These folks grumble and complain when they get held up by the TSA and have to get hand scanned or whatever. Then they write nastygrams on their blogs, leaving out their own stupidity -- which was the real reason they had problems. In the meantime, I'm delayed while they fumble their way through the process and grouse about having to shitcan their jumbo toiletries, etc.

There are two ways to get through security. One requires a bit of planning in advance and a little learning. The other lets you be as stupid as you want to be. It's a choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TicketyBoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
34. Regarding: Edit
The video runs a little over 15 minutes (at least the one I saw does).

And why were they obscuring a body search of the woman which was obviously done in public? Just that is enough to give me the creeps.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #34
38. The blurring was done for insideous reasons
It covers up the moment when they planted the chip in her shoulder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #34
39. I just counted from when she was pulled aside at 11:02.
Edited on Sat Oct-17-09 11:55 AM by hedgehog
She was out of the box at 11:04, on her way at 11:10.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LibDemAlways Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #34
41. Public body searches are routine, and people have been conditioned to
meekly accept them. The woman in the video looked to be totally compliant. Didn't look like someone who was giving the screeners a hard time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TicketyBoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #41
49. But if they're "routine"
and public, why was it obscured? I don't understand this. Seems an unlikely measure of protection of one's privacy at this point in time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LibDemAlways Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #49
55. It's obscured probably because they are feeling around her bra or made her
Edited on Sat Oct-17-09 01:35 PM by LibDemAlways
unzip her pants. Both are pretty routine. I realize it's stupid to conduct that kind of an invasive search in public and then obscure it on the video, but there's no rhyme or reason with TSA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GirlinContempt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 12:28 PM
Response to Original message
43. One time when my sister and I were very young
a US customs official gave my parents an INCREDIBLY hard time for over an hour at the boarder. We're Canadian, and I don't know about in the US but here you put your children on your own passport, up till the age of I think 12. The kids pictures aren't on the passport, just the parents.

The customs official accused my parents of being kidnappers, said he had no way of knowing that these were really their children (or even really the children on the passports), and when my mother said to ask us, he accused them of threatening and abusing us so we would answer properly. This guy was the biggest asshole of all time. There was NO reason to treat my parents this way, they were in no way suspicious. We were a normal white (which shouldn't matter but sadly often does) upper middle class (which shouldn't matter but sadly often does) family in a Volvo station-wagon with nothing suspicious in our luggage, on our persons, nothing. We'd made many trips as a family over the border and never had this problem EVER before. My parents had their passports, drivers licenses, insurance and registration, health cards, everything. It was awful, my parents were so upset about it. I remember my mum crying over it. This guy just WOULDN'T stop! He kept accusing them of being kidnappers, abusing children, all sorts of awful stuff. Finally though, he let us through. He had to, he had *NOTHING* to go on.

My parents decided to go and file a complaint, because it was just so awful. Guess who was sitting at the desk when they did?

THE SAME GUY.

Ugh.



I know it's not the same thing. But that is REAL abuse of your power I think, and wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GirlinContempt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 12:52 PM
Response to Original message
51. SHE PUT HER SON IN THE STROLLER HERSELF AND HE SAT THERE THE WHOLE TIME!
Edited on Sat Oct-17-09 01:03 PM by GirlinContempt
It's crazy, after reading her post, to watch this. She was in the box thing for less than sixty seconds before she starting waving to people and getting upset. In total, she was in that thing for less than 2 mins! Yeesh. I dunno, isn't it pretty common knowledge that it takes time these days to get through US airport security? Make sure you have enough time to do so. Which, actually, she did if her claims of having 45 mins to the flight were accurate. What was the insane rush? I don't like the way the thing was done, frankly, but it is in no way the horror tale I read before. And I'm inclined to believe it was the same person. Her items matched up, she had the kid, it would be easy to disprove. If it *wasn't* her and something like that DID happen and they were trying to cover it up, why would they release a tape at all? Why not just release a statement of denial?

Wow, the whole thing seems a complete fabrication. Jeez.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iamjoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #51
70. Well, To Be Fair To Her
to be fair to her, when you are anxious to get some where a minute of just waiting can seem like a lot longer. Add to that the woman is already high strung and you can see how it could go badly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GirlinContempt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #70
71. Yeah, a minute can seem like a lot longer
but come on, lets not be too fair to her. Her story was bullshit. As soon as the TSA posted the video, she shut off commenting on her blog. Now, she's taken away everything except her one story about the TSA. Yeaaaaaaah....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rvablue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #71
73. +1! Noticed that, too. She is FOS. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iamjoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #71
76. That's True
It isn't right to make up stories about law enforcement. Maybe I'm just a big coward, but I believe in being respectful to them, even if I think what they're doing is ridiculous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GirlinContempt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #76
77. I think in most cases
they're just doing what they're told to do. I find there is very little use in getting angry with people who're just doing their jobs. Just like people who yell at store employees over pricing or policy, what can a min. wage employee do about it? You're just ruining their day for no good reason.

Then again, I don't know all that much about the FSA in general. Just this womans story and my observations since with the evidence presented.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 07:18 PM
Response to Original message
74. And this is why all law enforcement should have cameras
It helps to protect YOU from abuse... and to protect them from abuse.

I wish people remembered MOST of the time there is a camera anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ipaint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 10:16 PM
Response to Original message
82. In Canada they let you remove whatever it is that is setting the alarm off
and try the scanner again. If you can't figure out what it is you can request a private room where they will try to figure out what is setting it off with a wand or search. All your belongings go with you.

You aren't purposely humiliated in a locked plexi glass pen smack in the middle of two lines of shoeless people as an example of a "bad" flyer and possible terrorist and ignored while all your belongings pile up at the end of a conveyor belt. Had this women been treated semi-human she would have taken off the metal pacifier clip she forgot about, gone back through the scanner and been on her way.

If americans think this is acceptable they truly are are passive sheep.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GirlinContempt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #82
83. I've always had them scan me in public
it's much faster than what I saw there, though. As soon as I step through they ask if I have anything else, I never do (but I assume they'd have me pass again without it if I did), they grab the wand, pass it over me, and then let me go. It always beeps on my bra, and often on the clasp of my pants, that that'll be it. They just ignore the clasp beeps, (at least they always ignore it on me) I assume because it's so common. Thats it. I've had that happen in Toronto, Montreal and Winnipeg.

I do know that if anything further is required they take you to a private room. I didn't know you could request a private room for the wand passover.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-18-09 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #82
93. The plexiglass booth is more than a holding pen. There are air jets
in the booth blowing past you to sensors looking for explosives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Aug 23rd 2014, 01:28 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC