|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/leukemia-patient-says-she-was-embarrassed-by-security-pat-down-tsa-says-procedures-followed/2012/10/09/3efbad90-127d-11e2-9a39-1f5a7f6fe945_story.html
There have been many complaints and bad stories about TSA and airport pat downs, but this one may just be the worst.
Michelle Dunaj is dying of leukemia and is flying to Hawaii. She made every measure possible ahead of time in order for her to have a smooth journey, including security check for her medicine, a wheelchair, and all necessary documents.
But nothing went as planned when she arrived at the airport. A machine couldn't get a reading on her saline bags, so a TSA agent forced one open, contaminating the fluid she needs to survive.
She says agents also made her lift up her shirt and pull back the bandages holding feeding tubes in place. Dunaj needs those tubes because of organ failure. With other passengers staring, Dunaj says she asked for privacy and was turned down.
"They just said that it was fine; the location we were at was fine," she said. "And when somebody wants to take a trip, especially what I call an 'end-of-life trip' because you want to see your family and friends, then it becomes more important than just taking a trip," she said.
I think there was gross abuse of authority committed somewhere, and even direct violation of procedures. Add to that the fact of the nature of the trip. I can't imagine how hellish it must have been for her.
|
If this is true then this looks really bad on them. Can't believe they wouldn't at least take her to a private place instead of doing it right there.
|
Searching sick and injured people is probably standard practice after all the people taking advantage of it by smuggling drugs inside casts etc. But they really should of let her have it done in a private room, I think that's a legal requirement. And not sure what to make of the drop bags, I mean you have to check this stuff otherwise you just smuggle everything inside medicinal looking bags but there should be ways to do it without causing contamination.
|
I understand the security being strict on people checking in with medical issues, but why did they not allow private search?
|
She needs to find a lawyer. Only a lawsuit will put real pressure on the TSA agents responsible for this chain of events.
|
Tbh, ariport security can do only so much to check. I mean if you think about it, there are soooooooo many ways to get around it to get a time bomb on a plane.
That being said, not giving privacy in checking is a terrible, terrible thing. When I had to get major upper body braces and fly on planes, they let me do so in a private room (this is Honolulu and Hilo Airports in Hawaii)
Maybe it's like those German airports taking away Stradivariuses from renown musicians because "they might illegally sell it", even though they have proper lending papers at the airport from the foundations. Wayyy too sensitive.
Edit: Grammar
|
So far there are not too many americans in the thread, but as you guys come, you should really appreciate how this is your collective fault. Nothing exists on its own, even the mighty TSA has been created and appointed by your government, that you elected and you did not pressure it enough to put things straight (also because you keep buying the "we must protect you from terrorists" stories). So if you are an American and you are outraged, don't even think about bitching on the internet if you haven't already written to your congresman!
After a couple of visists, I still think that the US is quite a cool (even though very sifficult to grasp) country. But this TSA crap, which every visitor must come in contact with, is really ruining the image.
|
I don't see what relevance her dying has to do with anything. Either this is how you have to treat people for security or it isn't. As far as I can tell, it isn't how you have to treat people. Privacy seems like a luxury that should be afforded, as does extreme courtesy if there is a problem with your equipment that forces you to act more invasively than normal.
|
On October 10 2012 17:30 opisska wrote:
So far there are not too many americans in the thread, but as you guys come, you should really appreciate how this is your collective fault. Nothing exists on its own, even the mighty TSA has been created and appointed by your government, that you elected and you did not pressure it enough to put things straight (also because you keep buying the "we must protect you from terrorists" stories). So if you are an American and you are outraged, don't even think about bitching on the internet if you haven't already written to your congresman!
After a couple of visists, I still think that the US is quite a cool (even though very sifficult to grasp) country. But this TSA crap, which every visitor must come in contact with, is really ruining the image.
So this is something I've always wondered. In the US, there is a constant state of low fear that terrorists or even just some crazy dude will come and blow up a plane or something, which is supposed to be the justification for the TSA, Patriot Act, and all that. Obviously, much of this is fabricated by politicians as a means of maintaining the status quo and their incumbency by using fear as a voter motivation, and allowing them to beef up security measures to pretend like they are doing something important. I recognize that in general, Americans probably are more afraid of potential attacks than the actual threat would deserve.
However, I do feel like because it is the US, and because of its image and stature in the world, it [i]is[i] more likely to attacked by some fanatical individual or group than, say, the Czech Republic. I think it is not unreasonable or arrogant to put forth the claim that America probably faces a larger risk of potential attack than other Western countries. However, I'm just not sure how much of a legitimate threat there is, and whether the risk of an attack is great enough to warrant all the breaches of privacy increased security bring along. If the US were really in as much danger as politicians would like us to believe, then hell, we need even more surveillance of airports and passengers coming into the states. But obviously that isn't the case, so with a lesser degree of threat, there is a lesser degree of security needed. The question in my mind is how much is needed.
|
On October 10 2012 17:40 Emporio wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2012 17:30 opisska wrote:
So far there are not too many americans in the thread, but as you guys come, you should really appreciate how this is your collective fault. Nothing exists on its own, even the mighty TSA has been created and appointed by your government, that you elected and you did not pressure it enough to put things straight (also because you keep buying the "we must protect you from terrorists" stories). So if you are an American and you are outraged, don't even think about bitching on the internet if you haven't already written to your congresman!
After a couple of visists, I still think that the US is quite a cool (even though very sifficult to grasp) country. But this TSA crap, which every visitor must come in contact with, is really ruining the image. So this is something I've always wondered. In the US, there is a constant state of low fear that terrorists or even just some crazy dude will come and blow up a plane or something, which is supposed to be the justification for the TSA, Patriot Act, and all that. Obviously, much of this is fabricated by politicians as a means of maintaining the status quo and their incumbency by using fear as a voter motivation, and allowing them to beef up security measures to pretend like they are doing something important. I recognize that in general, Americans probably are more afraid of potential attacks than the actual threat would deserve. However, I do feel like because it is the US, and because of its image and stature in the world, it [i]is[i] more likely to attacked by some fanatical individual or group than, say, the Czech Republic. I think it is not unreasonable or arrogant to put forth the claim that America probably faces a larger risk of potential attack than other Western countries. However, I'm just not sure how much of a legitimate threat there is, and whether the risk of an attack is great enough to warrant all the breaches of privacy increased security bring along. If the US were really in as much danger as politicians would like us to believe, then hell, we need even more surveillance of airports and passengers coming into the states. But obviously that isn't the case, so with a lesser degree of threat, there is a lesser degree of security needed. The question in my mind is how much is needed.
The problem is that the whole argument is fucking silly and pointless and hinges on the belief that any of these measures actually do anything to prevent terrorism. Fact is, terrorism has worked. No amount of airport security or lack of rights or border patrol can stop somebody from blowing up a bunch of people in a mall. People are terrified.
|
There is a rising trend of "wheelchair protest" in airports these days. If you ask for a wheelchair, they will send you to the front of the line. They aren't even allowed to ask if you are handicapped or not.
This is how big government works. Bureaucratic stupidity stifles the entire system until common sense is dead, and then the people devote their energy to working or abusing the stupid system and rules in place instead of adhering to the basic unspoken social compacts which have guided society around the globe for centuries, the type of social compacts which say things like "don't harass and embarrass a dying woman in an airport." Standard "we are just doing our job" cowardice from all parties involved. Can't wait for these people to run health care.
|
I don't understand how you could possibly be such a pathetic human being so as to deny the right to privacy. This race we call humans boggles my mind.
|
On October 10 2012 17:43 -Kaiser- wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2012 17:40 Emporio wrote:On October 10 2012 17:30 opisska wrote:
So far there are not too many americans in the thread, but as you guys come, you should really appreciate how this is your collective fault. Nothing exists on its own, even the mighty TSA has been created and appointed by your government, that you elected and you did not pressure it enough to put things straight (also because you keep buying the "we must protect you from terrorists" stories). So if you are an American and you are outraged, don't even think about bitching on the internet if you haven't already written to your congresman!
After a couple of visists, I still think that the US is quite a cool (even though very sifficult to grasp) country. But this TSA crap, which every visitor must come in contact with, is really ruining the image. So this is something I've always wondered. In the US, there is a constant state of low fear that terrorists or even just some crazy dude will come and blow up a plane or something, which is supposed to be the justification for the TSA, Patriot Act, and all that. Obviously, much of this is fabricated by politicians as a means of maintaining the status quo and their incumbency by using fear as a voter motivation, and allowing them to beef up security measures to pretend like they are doing something important. I recognize that in general, Americans probably are more afraid of potential attacks than the actual threat would deserve. However, I do feel like because it is the US, and because of its image and stature in the world, it [i]is[i] more likely to attacked by some fanatical individual or group than, say, the Czech Republic. I think it is not unreasonable or arrogant to put forth the claim that America probably faces a larger risk of potential attack than other Western countries. However, I'm just not sure how much of a legitimate threat there is, and whether the risk of an attack is great enough to warrant all the breaches of privacy increased security bring along. If the US were really in as much danger as politicians would like us to believe, then hell, we need even more surveillance of airports and passengers coming into the states. But obviously that isn't the case, so with a lesser degree of threat, there is a lesser degree of security needed. The question in my mind is how much is needed. The problem is that the whole argument is fucking silly and pointless and hinges on the belief that any of these measures actually do anything to prevent terrorism. Fact is, terrorism has worked. No amount of airport security or lack of rights or border patrol can stop somebody from blowing up a bunch of people in a mall. People are terrified.
If i recall correctly, the chance that you die in a terrorist attack has been lower then that you die of being struck by lightning for basically ever.
|
It is understandable for them to check on her, especially since it may not be all too uncommon for a drug trafficker or the likes to try to evoke empathy in order to get by security. However, they need to treat these cases with extreeeeeeeme care and sensitivity. They should've taken her to somewhere more private, tried to contact her doctor for confirmation or do anything to make it as non pervasive as possible.
Right, just read the thread. Some people share this thought. Check her, just be sensible! Its an unfortunate thing, but I think security has to be conscious while simultaneously impersonal.
EDIT: Also, I don't think terrorism was the main concern. Smuggled drugs, unlike terrorism, isn't an uncommon thing.
|
On October 10 2012 17:50 [Agony]x90 wrote:
It is understandable for them to check on her, especially since it may not be all too uncommon for a drug trafficker or the likes to try to evoke empathy in order to get by security. However, they need to treat these cases with extreeeeeeeme care and sensitivity. They should've taken her to somewhere more private, tried to contact her doctor for confirmation or do anything to make it as non pervasive as possible.
Right, just read the thread. Some people share this thought. Check her, just be sensible! Its an unfortunate thing, but I think security has to be conscious while simultaneously impersonal.
EDIT: Also, I don't think terrorism was the main concern. Smuggled drugs, unlike terrorism, isn't an uncommon thing.
Yeah better pull out the tubes feeding her, let's make her really miserable, after all she might carry a couple grams of cocaine!
|
I don't see what this has to do with the TSA freaking out about terrorism. They just handled it wrong and should have been more discrete about it if she asked them to. The whole breaking her saline bags and crap who knows what's true since they both have a different story. I can imagine either of them lying...
This woman would always have been checked out a little bit in any airport on earth for drug reasons, long before the terrorism bullshit. This story is basically about a woman being "embarrassed". "I thought that was a little rude," she said. Hard to quantify how much i should care about this.
|
This is sad. And what's worse is that the security will be getting the flak on this. There must have been a communication breakdown somewhere, the officers not being informed that there were arrangements made ahead in time. They were merely doing their job on this one.
|
On October 10 2012 18:09 DannyJ wrote:
I don't see what this has to do with the TSA freaking out about terrorism. They just handled it wrong and should have been more discrete about it if she asked them to. The whole breaking her saline bags and crap who knows what's true since they both have a different story. I can imagine either of them lying...
This woman would always have been checked out a little bit in any airport on earth for drug reasons, long before the terrorism bullshit. This story is basically about a woman being "embarrassed". "I thought that was a little rude," she said. Hard to quantify how much i should care about this.
Pretty much this.
If you read the article “I asked them if they thought that was an appropriate location, and they told me that everything was fine".
That quote doesn't say anything about requesting a private room. She simply asked if it was appropriate to do it there and they said yes, and he was embarrassed but she didn't speak up for herself. Maybe if she refused being patted down until they went to a private room then she would of got her way, but if you gonna sit there and comply then complain later how you were embarrassed well it's your fault for letting that situation happen.
“I didn’t want to start getting upset and swearing and causing more of a scene or issue,”
She was completely passive about the whole incident.
|
On October 10 2012 18:18 neggro wrote:
This is sad. And what's worse is that the security will be getting the flak on this. There must have been a communication breakdown somewhere, the officers not being informed that there were arrangements made ahead in time. They were merely doing their job on this one.
just doing there job? Is denying private search part of their job too?
The TSA deserves all the flak they will get in this case, communication breakdown or not.
|
this kind of made me sick to my stomach... that "this location is fine" type of thing threw me off... that shit is fucking disgusting, there gets to a point where it goes from just a security check to something thats blatantly humiliating and just unnecessary..
nonetheless i hope she enjoys her visit and doesnt let morons like them to keep her from having a good time
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
