Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

"TSA Makes Cancer Victim Remove Prosthetic Breast"

But hey. We have to do something, right?

And complaining about stuff like this is essentially telling terrorists, just pack your explosives in that gaping cavity in your chest where you had the lumpy malignancy scraped out.

Don’t be so fucking prudish, people. We’re protecting freedom!**

****
update: And so on! (thanks to zamoose)

73 Replies to “"TSA Makes Cancer Victim Remove Prosthetic Breast"”

  1. happyfeet says:

    if they get Americans to passively accept being patted on like pets by government union pieces of shit then being American isn’t really all it’s cracked up to be

  2. Jeff G. says:

    Let me add here that I don’t mean to diminish real concerns about security. But personally, I’d rather we quietly profile than put a law abiding cancer survivor through anything like this, just so we can pretend we’re being both “safe” and “fair” by way of our screening procedures.

  3. Bob Reed says:

    Meh…If they have to polish my pole a bit, in the interest of national security, well, whatever it takes, man.

    Just make sure I have an area nearby where I can have a smoke afterwards!

    /sarc

  4. dicentra says:

    Bookworm makes two excellent points in response to Ace:

    1. Human ingenuity will override the scans and pat-downs. If terrorists run out of external places to hide explosives, they’ll use internal places. We already know from prison stories about the wonderful hiding place anal and vaginal cavities, not to mention tummies, are to people determined to run something past security. We can also count on all sorts of surgical implants. Even a solid scar grope won’t reveal whether there’s something dangerous lurking behind that scar. Further, considering the number of women with breast implants (and, or so I’ve heard, the increasing number of men with testicular, penile, or buttock implants), there’s no way to tell if the implant is saline or inert plastic or rubber, or if it’s something that goes boom. This means that the humiliation and inconvenience of scans and pats aren’t necessarily going to stop anything.

    2. And then there’s the girl thing…. From puberty to menopause, once a month, women are dependent on pads and tampons. The tampons, of course, fall into category 1, above, which is they’re internal, invisible, and potentially more lethal than just an absorbent piece of cotton. The pads, which are external, carry with them the potential for huge embarrassment and endless inconvenience. First, I doubt many women want every airport security person in the world to know that it’s “that time of the month.” Second, short of escorting the woman to a restroom and having her prove that she really is having her period, how in the world can the TSA know whether the pad is legitimate or whether another panty-bomber in the making is standing there? The same holds true for men (and women) with incontinence problems who are dependent on pads. Once again, being humiliated isn’t going to make a difference for air safety.

    I’ve heard word that some airports are rebelling, and may even throw out the TSA in favor of private security firms.

  5. JD says:

    If you could select a screener of your choice, Jessica Alba for example, then maybe I would view this differently.

  6. Bordo says:

    Let me add here that I don’t mean to diminish real concerns about security.

    This is the part that a lot of people are not getting. Yes, people are pissed because the procedures are invasive. But amidst all of the talk about “sexual assault” and “don’t touch my junk” let’s not forget that these invasive procedures are also ineffective

    If these scanners and pat downs could be shown or had historically been proven to stop attacks I sincerely doubt most people would have a problem with them.

  7. Abe Froman says:

    I could live with it if congresscritters were subjected to the same indignity. Then again, Granny Rictus probably hasn’t been touched in her special place since the Carter presidency and might enjoy it.

  8. cranky-d says:

    As you said yesterday in the comments, this is theater.

    The fact that it has come to this is not surprising. I fly in a month. I haven’t decided if I’m going to cause trouble or not yet. I’m hoping the whole situation becomes a blip on our “safety” radar, and we move to bomb-sniffing dogs and people asking questions of passengers and looking for responses. You know, like El-Al does it.

  9. Darleen says:

    But personally, I’d rather we quietly profile

    ::::cough::: Israelis :::cough::::

  10. cranky-d says:

    Bordo made the point I forgot to make. This shit doesn’t work. All someone need do is cram the explosives into some orifice that is not currently being checked, and the result would now be to get strip-searched and probed before every flight. That will not stand.

  11. Darleen says:

    Somewhere, right before these Federalized Mall Cops with a License to Fondle were created, I recall arguing that this should be handled by the airlines. Indeed, their safety measures and yet sensativity to passengers could actually become part of their marketing … and airlines are very motivated to be thorough because one slip up means the end of the business.

  12. Bob Reed says:

    Seriously though, I believe that we need to adopt a system similar to that used by El-Al, the Israeli airline.

    I’ve heard this suggestion blown off because, “It’s impractical man! El-Al has 50 departures a day, we have more than 2400!”. To which I reply, I’m certain that we have a similarly scaled number of TSA employees as well, and if not, could easily get as many as it took to do the job.

    Air security is important. It should be an arena where PC posturing is put aside in favor of effectiveness. Instead of subjecting all of us to being either x-rayed or felt up, why not profile; one of the cornerstones of police work for the last 100 years!

    No one is sure if the level of radiation in the backscatter scanners won’t relly have an effect on frequent travelers.

    Why doesn’t TSA offer to issue a secure, biometrically verifiable, ID, like an air-passport, so that frequent travelers, airline workers, and those who’d rather avoid all this unpleasantness? Don’t say it can’t be done, because at Navy missile systems we all had clearance badges.

  13. Darleen says:

    But personally, I’d rather we quietly profile

    yeah, putting one’s hands all over a shrieking three year old really protects everyone from the toner cartridge in the cargo hold …

  14. Bordo says:

    How about this: reach out to current and retired law enforcement personnel as well as current and retired military personnel who have held certain combat or operationally-related MOSs. Then deputize them and allow them to carry concealed while flying.

    Most of these people have already undergone some form of background check. Before they are deputized screen them again. All of them already own or have access to handguns.

    Yes, there are probably a dozen holes in this idea. But we really need to start coming up with ideas that don’t involve huge crowds of targets…I mean travelers…standing around in unsecured areas waiting to be vetted.

    A year ago I was flying through Charles De Gaulle and someone left a bag unattended. So they literally cleared out that entire section of the airport and made all 3,000 of us (no exaggeration) go through for re-screening. Of course, this huge crown was waiting in an unsecured area right next to the main doors of the airport. It wouldn’t have taken a genius to set this scenario up and have a few of his fellow jihadis waiting to waltz in among the crown and go BOOM.

    I still shake my head when I think about that.

  15. Mueller says:

    #11
    That would require too much common sense and not enough patronage money.
    Just remember. If it’s invasive, awkward, or ponderous, some democrats brother-in-law is making a ton of money out of it.

  16. Big Bang Hunter says:

    “….there’s no way to tell if the implant is saline or inert plastic or rubber, or if it’s something that goes boom.”

    – Actually there is. I worked on such a system over 10 years ago. By now it’s pretty well refined.

    – Problem is it works in the same manner as a MRI scan, but it’s main purpose is to detect all forms of explosive substances, on or within a person’s body.

    – With the natural reactions travelers are already feeling, I can just imagine people agreeing to lie down and pass through the machine, right along with your luggage.

    – Yeah, that’s going to happen.

  17. cranky-d says:

    Amen, Mueller.

  18. zamoose says:

    You know what would be a cheaper, far-more-effective bit of security theater?

    Three highly visible, flak-jacketed, pistol-packing Air Marshals per flight. I’d bet you that training, deputizing and destination accommodations for that many law enforcement officials would be far, FAR cheaper than the zap-n’-prod, shoes-off-sheeple! crap we go through now.

  19. Slartibartfast says:

    I imagine there’s some people who wouldn’t object to a full cavity search in the name of national security. Hell, I’d bet there are people who’d pay to be cavity-searched.

    Me, though…I decline. I keep having scene-flashbacks to the testicle-squeezing incident in Cryptonomicon, and I’d rather just not have anyone do that to me.

  20. ProfShade says:

    The current screenings don’t catch anything in body cavities. There, we said it. That’s the next step. As for breast protheses? Yeah, you can hide a lot of C4 in there. Doesn’t feel quite natural, but yeah. Enough to take down a plane. So terrosits now just need to either find an explosive that has the same “look and feel” of saline/gel solutions found in breast implants, or load up their bums with C4.

  21. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Glenn Reynolds posted an insightful comment on this problem the other day.

  22. Bordo says:

    …or load up their bums with C4.

    Actually, I think a homeless person loaded down with explosives would be fairly easy to detect. Even for the TSA.

    On the other hand.

  23. Big Bang Hunter says:

    – Air Marshall’s, like those used by El-al, are effective in preventing armed hijacking, but are no defense against explosives smuggled aboard.

  24. Carin says:

    Shesh, Zamoose. Haven’t you seen a movie lately? Everyone knows the Air Marshal is ACTUALLY THE TERRORIST????

  25. Darleen says:

    zamoose

    TSA Mall Cops have the “common sense” part of their brain removed. It’s right there in the recruitment docs.

  26. I hope they know I can’t take out my Neuticles

  27. Darleen says:

    but are no defense against explosives smuggled aboard

    Maybe not again an explosive that is set to go off remotely or by timer

    but vis a vis the Shoe and Crotch bombers, when they tried to set it off themselves, passengers got very cranky and very involved.

  28. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Something else worth considering: The next time some sonofabitch living in a cave tapes a war declaration a la bin Laden in the late 90s, we take him at his word and use the full resources of the intelligence agencies and armed forces of the United States to find the bastard and kill him, preferably in some specatacular fashion.

  29. Slartibartfast says:

    Just wait until those jokers rent The Dark Knight on DVD.

  30. Crawford says:

    yeah, putting one’s hands all over a shrieking three year old really protects everyone from the toner cartridge in the cargo hold …

    Ah, but the TSA has that covered, too. They’ve banned air-mail packages weighing more than a pound from passenger flights.

    Which means the jihadis will be desperately searching for effective bombs weighing 0.95 pounds, and I can no longer order miniatures from my favorite British sources.

    All because no one ever stopped and asked, “Why the hell do we have air freight service to Yemen?!”

  31. DarthLevin says:

    Also, what’s stopping the terrorists from loading up a duffel bag with C4 and nails, walking up to the screener person, and detonating it in the middle of the throngs waiting for their scans? All before going through the security screening

  32. Dave in SoCal says:

    but vis a vis the Shoe and Crotch bombers, when they tried to set it off themselves, passengers got very cranky and very involved.

    Wait… cranky did what with his shoes and crotch? I’m confused and disturbed.

  33. Crawford says:

    Why doesn’t TSA offer to issue a secure, biometrically verifiable, ID, like an air-passport, so that frequent travelers, airline workers, and those who’d rather avoid all this unpleasantness?

    Because it would be “abused”. Meaning it would be used.

    Seriously — I fly only on the rarest of occasions (less frequently since the TSA was hatched), and I’d consider signing up for something like this primarily because I absolutely despise the “security” process. If I could fork over a little cash, let them check my bonafides, and skip the abuse by petty bureaucrats with badges?

  34. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Too late Slart. Have you tried getting on a plane dressed like an insane clown? It’s not pretty, let me tell you.

  35. Ernst Schreiber says:

    [W]hat’s stopping the terrorists from loading up a duffel bag with C4 and nails, walking up to the screener person, and detonating it in the middle of the throngs waiting for their scans? All before going through the security screening

    You think it’s coincidence that has them singling out nuns and little old ladies and small children for special scrutiny?

  36. Dave in SoCal says:

    I’ve heard word that some airports are rebelling, and may even throw out the TSA in favor of private security firms.

    As noted here, Orlando airport is considering replacing TSA with private contractors.

    However, the TSA predictably swoops in to rain all over the parade:

    “All commercial airports are regulated by TSA, whether the actual screening is performed by TSA officers or private companies,” spokesman Greg Soule told AOL News. “TSA sets the security standards that must be followed and includes the use of enhanced pat-downs and imaging technology, if installed at the airport.”

    So we get private pervs feeling us up instead of federal ones.

  37. Crawford says:

    So we get private pervs feeling us up instead of federal ones.

    No sovereign immunity to deal with when it’s a private company.

  38. Dave in SoCal says:

    No sovereign immunity to deal with when it’s a private company.

    So the private company will be motivated to feel us up in the most professional and courteous manner possible, but ultimately they have no control over the TSA mandated requirements for airport security and are forced to perform whatever humiliating, degrading and ultimately pointless steps the brain trust at Homeland Security devises.

  39. Squid says:

    The backlash may be ineffective, Dave, but at least it’s very visible and public backlash. Getting ordinary people primed for massive civil disobedience against a grotesque police power is never a bad development.

  40. Dave in SoCal says:

    And I know this has probably been asked before, but where are the airlines in all of this? Their customers are required to suffer abuse in order to use their services. Many of them are likely to become ex-customers threatening their ability to survive. Are the airlines afraid to speak up against the gov’t?

    If TSA decided tomorrow that everyone going into Costco needed to be strip searched, after the resulting falloff in business don’t you think the Costco CEO or the Chamber of Commerce or some other retail group would raise a stink?

  41. McGehee says:

    Back when the checkpoints were first proposed to be federalized, I was predicting the federal checkpoint personnel would make the private contractors’ employees (whose actions were used as justification for federalization) look like paragons of skill and tact.

    I don’t think I was the first to point out that the government was going to be hiring former privately employed screeners whose contractor jobs were eliminated as a result of the new plan, but it was pretty obvious the feds would need more people (because that’s what governments do), and thus would have to scrape closer to the bottom of the barrel to fill the additional slots.

    And yet, things really have managed to get worse than I could have imagined.

    Kudos, TSA!

  42. cranky-d says:

    Wait… cranky did what with his shoes and crotch? I’m confused and disturbed.

    I wasn’t there, it wasn’t me, and look, no one got hurt, okay?

  43. McGehee says:

    where are the airlines in all of this?

    There was a Drudge link claiming Southwest Airlines is making unhappy noises about what’s going on.

    As I recall, the “If you touch my junk I’ll have you arrested” guy got a refund on a non-refundable ticket from his airline, which cannot have gone over well with that airline’s bean counters. I think when the airlines do start reacting to all this, TSA’s procedures will be overhauled faster than you can say, “Buy me dinner first!”

  44. Dave in SoCal says:

    Squid, I think a backlash is essential if we hope to have any chance of changing the procedures. We need as much backlash as possible.

    Since we’re going to get sexually assaulted regardless of who is doing it, I would prefer it be done by federal employees, knowing that they are going to do the worse job possible and thereby pissing people off even more that what the ‘professional and courteous” private screeners would do.

  45. Entropy says:

    Also, what’s stopping the terrorists from loading up a duffel bag with C4 and nails, walking up to the screener person, and detonating it in the middle of the throngs waiting for their scans?

    Stop giving them ideas. They’ll have a TSA agent waiting on the curb to frisk me whenever I leave my home. For freedom, of course.

    Since gun control has worked so well wherever it’s been tried, maybe we just need explosives control.

    Bureau of Fireworks, Fertilizer and Flammables.

  46. sdferr says:

    Stop giving them ideas.

    Well anyhow, it won’t be a novel thing.

  47. cranky-d says:

    Bureau of Fireworks, Fertilizer and Flammables.

    When I read “Fertilizer” I thought “manure.” I think that was appropriate.

  48. Stephanie says:

    Entropy, the point is that any security that operates on a perimeter limited basis is by default not secure at the point where security begins. Each time you expand the perimeter, the target also gets moved.

    You do not take a terminal with folks milling about and force the people into one chokepoint that is a big red X for terrorists. One reason that malls have not been hit is that the kill ratio isn’t high enough. But Disney, sporting events and others that now have added these chokepoints might want to worry.

  49. Entropy says:

    sdferr, for a TSA bureacrat any idea at all is novel thing.

  50. Darleen says:

    Woman with artifical knees sets off metal detector, is subsequently groped

    Moroney explains “Her gloved hands touched my breasts…went between them. Then she went into the top of my slacks, inserted her hands between my underwear and my skin… then put her hands up on outside of slacks, and patted my genitals.”

    “I was shaking and crying when I left that room” Moroney says. “Under any other circumstance, if a person touched me like that without my permission, it would be considered criminal sexual assault.”

  51. Entropy says:

    Stephanie, you’re just taking this far more seriously than I am.

    It is “security theater”. It’s not about actually protecting stuff.

    You can’t foam-pad life. Shit happens. It’s horrible and all… but apart from the singular instance of 9/11, I do wonder if I should look this up and see whether more people are killed on US soil per year by terrorism (excluding 9/11), or by deer.

    No seriously.

    9/11 was what it was not because they took down the planes, but because they took them down on top skyscrapers.

    I can’t say honestly I feel the threats we face from shoebombers justify the actions we take to ward them off – knowing as I do that shit happens anyway, especially – what I see of much of our security response to terrorism is something like an emotional panic reaction.

    I did not use to think this way, but I fear leftists had half a point. Certainly, not always – but for some time now, I’ve felt Saddam was no real pressing threat to us. I supported the war, but I do not wish to do that again. Once started, it must be won… but in hindsight, I’m not sure it was well advised at all.

    I’ve remarked before, as have other people, to the effect ‘thank god we had Bush, not Gore’. But I do now honestly think: I wish we had Clinton.

    Lock the cockpit doors, put two armed plain-clothes air marshalls on the flight, lob a couple Cruise missiles in Asia’s general direction, molest an intern and get on with life.

    Personally, I am not a fearful person and, if I had the choice, I would myself choose to travel with an airline that simply said step through the metal detector, enjoy the in-flight movie and by the way, we’re not liable if Ahkmed blows you up and leave it at that. I’ve better statistical reasons to fear driving after 9PM on a Friday. As the type of person who does not wear a helmet on his motorcycle or a seatbelt in his car, I would feel retarded if I let myself worry over shoebombers.

    I’ve come to fear more what the fear of shoebombers might justify.

  52. Ernst Schreiber says:

    You all remember that scene between Sam Neill and Sean Connery in The Hunt for Red October, the one about travelling anywhere inside the United States without papers, the wonder at being able to do that? At the rate we’re going, a memory is all it’s going to be.

  53. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Since gun control has worked so well wherever it’s been tried, maybe we just need explosives control.

    We already have it. Falls under the jurisdiction of the BATF

  54. Entropy says:

    Alchohol, Tobacco and Firearms. What a strange blend of purviews.

    It’s like “The Bureau that regulates cool shit”.

    Who the hell thought of lumping those 3 together in one agency?

  55. McGehee says:

    Probably some liberal pantywaist whose neighbors liked to drink beer and smoke while doing target practice in the woods behind his house.

  56. Stephanie says:

    Entropy, you missed my point then. I AM advocating for “take the risk.” This pseudo security is absolutely worthless. My point is that the government, in it’s usual rush to “fix a problem” has, as usual, created more problems than it solved.

    When the government plays Let’s Make a Deal, the winner will always be behind the the door they didn’t choose.

  57. Mike LaRoche says:

    Who the hell thought of lumping those 3 together in one agency?

    Reminds me of one of my favorite bumper stickers: “Alcohol Tobacco, and Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.”

  58. Squid says:

    Probably some liberal pantywaist whose neighbors liked to drink beer and smoke while doing target practice in the woods behind his house.

    It’s all just a front for PETA. No ammo, ciggies or beer — no hunting!

  59. geoffb says:

    Who the hell thought of lumping those 3 together in one agency?

    The Federal “sin tax*” unit is what it is, add in DEA and they will be complete.

    *Things that the Federal Government feels it is sinful to own and use.

  60. Ernst Schreiber says:

    The Federal “sin tax*” unit is what it is

    Also the” Yankees despise Red Neck Perckerwoods” unit.

  61. Vlad the Impala says:

    Mark Steyn had great points about airline security. On his recent flight, the TSA agent scrutinized his driver’s license with a UV bulb and a loupe. However, 4 of the 19 nine-eleven hijackers even had REAL driver’s licenses. We can’t focus just on the things, we have to focus on the people.

    But soon the only exempt people will be the risky ones we CAN’T identify, namely burqa-clad Muslim “women”.

    Somehow, if some airport can escape the clutches of TSA and goes to profiling instead of neither-dinner-or-a-movie patdowns, you’ll see a stampede of people opting for that instead.

    The G in “G-men” now stands for Grope.

  62. Swen says:

    Hmm.. Right after the shoebomber incident when TSA started the whole shoe-sniffing thing I opined that we should consider ourselves lucky there hadn’t been any bra bombs. I suppose I should just keep my mouth shut and not suggest that the terrorists might stuff their heinies full of high explosives next.

  63. LTC John says:

    #20 – just take some AA batteries and/or Captain Crunch.

  64. Joe says:

    Big Sis Janet Napolitano justifies it by saying:

    “Hey you never know, the bitch might have been packing. Next is checking coochies. Here boys, step aside, I will show you how it is done…I am going in gloveless.”

    Look on the bright side, it is stuff like this that will have families road tripping again!

  65. geoffb says:

    From Drudge:

    The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is warning that any would-be commercial airline passenger who enters an airport checkpoint and then refuses to undergo the method of inspection designated by TSA will not be allowed to fly and also will not be permitted to simply leave the airport.

    That person will have to remain on the premises to be questioned by the TSA and possibly by local law enforcement. Anyone refusing faces fines up to $11,000 and possible arrest.

    “Once a person submits to the screening process, they can not just decide to leave that process,” says Sari Koshetz, regional TSA spokesperson, based in Miami.

  66. Pablo says:

    But Barbera said that if a person is judged to be a possible threat, deputies are legally permitted to detain and search that individual. “The deputies will do it at the airport just as they would do it anywhere else,” she said.

    Since when does being a “possible threat” justify detention or a law-enforcement search? I am a possible threat, at all times, to everyone around me. You are too.

    Fortunately, it seems that LEO’s aren’t terribly interested in conducting TSA’s missed body cavity searches on those who opt out.

  67. Pablo says:

    I suppose I should just keep my mouth shut and not suggest that the terrorists might stuff their heinies full of high explosives next.

    As I said earlier, with any luck we’ll have body cavity searches by summer 2012. I’m loading up on SquidCo stock and “No More O!” buttons.

    Has Bumblefuck said a word about any of this yet, or has he been to busy being carted around the planet in his gilded, jet-powered litter?

  68. happyfeet says:

    you said buttons

  69. BuddyPC says:

    I haven’t heard anyone comment on this yet, and would love to hear the Other Side’s (read: nitwit Left) discussion on this, but I have noticed that the same people making a stink regarding Arizona’s legal reinforcing of federal immigration law as some deevolution into a “papers please” dystopia are telling us we don’t have a constitutional right to fly commercially and need to shut up and deal with this “inconvenience.”
    I won’t even bother noting that a big chunk of those (read: Pelosi, Franken, their staffers and biggest heeled partisans) not only refuse to fly commercially but always, firstly, insist on a built-in mechanism for themselves bypassing these mandated “inconveniences,” because I blame Dick Cheney.
    See also: Obamacare, taxes.

  70. […] November 2010 in Topical Stories about TSA outrages are all over the Internet — children being treated roughly, medical needs not being properly allowed for, sneers at the […]

Comments are closed.