TSA: Nipple rings a terrorist risk?
posted at 10:15 am on March 28, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
A Texas woman had to remove her nipple rings with pliers before being allowed to board a flight in Lubbock, and has now filed a lawsuit against the Transportation Security Agency for the incident. Mandi Hamlin says she was publicly humiliated, but TSA insists that it followed its procedures, even though their website notes that passengers can opt for a private pat-down as an alternative to removing piercings and other body jewelry:
Hamlin, 37, said she was trying to board a flight from Lubbock to Dallas on Feb. 24 when she was scanned by a Transportation Security Administration agent after passing through a larger metal detector without problems.
The female TSA agent used a handheld detector that beeped when it passed in front of Hamlin’s chest, the Dallas-area resident said.
Hamlin said she told the woman she was wearing nipple piercings. The agent then called over her male colleagues, one of whom said she would have to remove the jewelry, Hamlin said.
Hamlin said she could not remove them and asked whether she could instead display her pierced breasts in private to the female agent. But several other male officers told her she could not board her flight until the jewelry was out, she said.
She was taken behind a curtain and managed to remove one bar-shaped piercing but had trouble with the second, a ring.
“Still crying, she informed the TSA officer that she could not remove it without the help of pliers, and the officer gave a pair to her,” said Hamlin’s attorney, Gloria Allred, reading from a letter she sent Thursday to the director of the TSA’s Office of Civil Rights and Liberties. Allred is a well-known Los Angeles lawyer who often represents high-profile claims.
I understand that TSA has to follow its guidelines strictly in order to maintain flight security. I fly a few times every year, and the knowledge that we have tough screening makes me feel better about getting on airplanes, although I am at best a white-knuckle flier. It’s a tough job made tougher by passengers who unreasonably object to the screening processes.
Having said all that, how does a nipple ring constitute a threat to flight security? Unless someone has created a breast bomb, a nipple piercing should be of no consequence to TSA. Hamlin even offered to have the TSA agent conduct a visual inspection, and would have consented to a pat-down. Instead of taking a common-sense approach to the issue, the TSA agents and their management have used a “rules are rules” defense that show the need to revise the rules for sanity.
Hamlin still boarded the flight with her navel piercing installed. One could only imagine what would have happened had Hamlin had other, more intimate piercings at the security stop in Lubbock.
We need tight security for our air travel, but we need to ensure that those enforcing it remain focused on actual security rather than just the rules. Someone owes Hamlin an apology. (photo via Instapundit)
Update: I’ve been reading the comments, and I think we’re missing the point. The purpose of the pre-flight screening is to eliminate security threats, not to enforce a no-jewelry policy. If someone can show how a nipple bar or ring could constitute a security threat, then I’d be sympathetic to the notion that they have to be removed before the flight. Shoes and water bottles can hold material that could be used in an attack, as can jackets, bags, and so on. If nipple bars present no threat, why should TSA be concerned about them? Shouldn’t they be focused on real threats?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
One word… “profiling”. That’s what many other countries do to screen passengers. When are we going to learn…?
CliffHanger on March 28, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Bingo
Think_b4_speaking on March 28, 2008 at 11:51 AM
So you’re judgment is based on one data point. What a thoughtful analysis.
I own a small mail order company and ship USPS almost exclusively. Not only are they cheaper and faster than UPS, in the last 4 years, they haven’t lost or broken a single order including international orders. damaged and lost UPS orders happen monthly.
TheBigOldDog on March 28, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Snook was what Hillary had on a South park episode. She had a bomb in her privates.
Torch on March 28, 2008 at 11:54 AM
Your personal empirical data is the only evidence I have seen in 20 years to the contrary to my hypothesis. Besides, this is going OT in a hurry. The key point is that TSA was set up to project an aura of security, and is rapidly gaining the government level of nonsensical procedures. Take a look at the successful applicants to TSA, who have been given a badge and told they are allowed to do pretty much whatever they want to travelers, in the name of ’security’.
Think_b4_speaking on March 28, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Yes, I think you are right. I have no answer to that.
JiangxiDad on March 28, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Did they re-wand her afterwards to be sure? My guess would be not, but ur point is still valid.
JiangxiDad on March 28, 2008 at 12:08 PM
Uh, sounds like she HAD cleared the initial screening, and then was pulled for a secondary screening… the question becomes “why the secondary screening”?
Chances are she had flown before with these things in, and not had a problem because she was not “wanded” before…
These are clearly not a threat… unless your gonna use em to poke someones eye out? Plain old fashioned over reaction of security forces to a non threat…
I’ve seen it time and again… a security person tells you somthing silly… you question it, but they can’t back down because they have to keep their “authority” intact… and other security folks then back em up… and the situation gets silly, and sometimes dangerous…
IMO she is owed an appology, but certainly not money over this…
Romeo13 on March 28, 2008 at 12:09 PM
TSA are NAZI and their uniforms make them look like SS.
jdun on March 28, 2008 at 12:09 PM
IMHO, the stricter TSA regulations do more for the illusion of security than in actual fact. A determined, professional terrorist can still wreck havoc using planes. We cannot afford living our lives in fear of every nineteen cent pen we see, but we must make the most of every day we’re given.
DR Good on March 28, 2008 at 12:09 PM
This is a great example of what not to do to prevent hijackings. 3oz. of liquid explosive is enough to bring down an airplane in flight. Particularly if that explosive is used in a sensitive area. The TSA is performing theatre, and not providing real security. That’s just the way it is. Bringing an airplane down is simply a matter of being determined enough. That’s it, end of story. No “screening” is ever going to make a difference. That being said, the massive inconsistencies in the TSA screeners training and understanding of the rules/regulations doesn’t help the matter either. Small people who get big authority inevitably screw things up. There is a better way, but that would require paying professional security folks and not using ready man labor screeners. This should never have happened. I will say however, that if you feel safer because these boobs (clever, no) are running security, more power to you.
wfiguy on March 28, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Safety is the issue. Steel can be used as a weapon, period. You subject yourself to scrutiny if you pass thru a metal detector, period. Stop the whining, and thanks to the TSA for keeping us safe, in spite of the ‘victim’, irresponsible, selfish, children. Act like a responsible adult or walk.
frizzbee on March 28, 2008 at 12:14 PM
Time for a body cavity search! They couldn’t pay me enough.
sheesh on March 28, 2008 at 12:18 PM
I’ve had to deal with similar security for years. It’s not a big deal if you follow the rules and prepare in advance, i.e., don’t bring anything that is going to trip an alarm.
Blake on March 28, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Probably psychological reasons. People who puncture their breasts or genitals are not firing on all cylinders.
Get the punctured and the obese off our planes, I say. Many alternative forms of travel are available to people. Air travel should be reserved for hygienic individuals who can retain all body parts within their assigned seating.
paul006 on March 28, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Right. That’s why there’s been so many bombing and hijacking since 9/11.
You people crack me up.
TheBigOldDog on March 28, 2008 at 12:22 PM
You just made all the time I’ve wasted on this thread worth it. For all the TSA critics, this one’s for you:
It’s not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or when the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worth cause; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who at the worst if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat. –Theodore Roosevelt
TheBigOldDog on March 28, 2008 at 12:24 PM
The DMV of the skies. Put a uniform on some people and they turn into little tyrants. I’ll bet the psychometrics used in screening applicants actually selects for this mindset.
shaken on March 28, 2008 at 12:25 PM
As I type, Gloria Allred is on the talk radio circuit lying her teeth out on behalf of her lying client. I hope they don’t give her a dime.
Blake on March 28, 2008 at 12:27 PM
These 2 asshats deserve each other..
Wade on March 28, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Just being honest. Really, does anybody want to fly next to this man? When did soap and water last see those crevices? And if the mucus is so thick and hard that you can’t get your breast clamps off without pliers, you do not need to be flying those pathogens all around the country.
paul006 on March 28, 2008 at 12:33 PM
The real problem here is that we have government hired dolts running this thing. These folks do not have the capacity to apply logic to any situation so in order to overcome the stupidity of the workforce (which they can not fire) they have to make stupid zero tolerance rules.
conservnut on March 28, 2008 at 12:38 PM
no but she has a Prince Albert.
Mojack420 on March 28, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Ya, what kind of idiot wants people to actually be able to pass through a metal detector without setting off before they bored a plane anyway?
TheBigOldDog on March 28, 2008 at 12:44 PM
Thanks Islam.
It’s a good thing this woman was not a Muslim, think how much more a Muslim woman would be humiliated by this experience. And thats not to even mention her follow up required honor killing for being revealed a harlot.
Who says Islam has had no cultural effect on our society? See, your diverse and didn’t even know it.
BL@KBIRD on March 28, 2008 at 12:54 PM
You do realize that makes absolutely no logical sense – right?
There’s no point in repeating the argument – since it now seems obvious where your sympathies lie and why they lie there.
But the simple fact is that if a woman’s breasts trigger an alarm it is far from impossible in this day and age to imagine actual implants might be used as explosives. It’s already been tried with phony pregnancies.
Thus, you’re left with two alternatives. The first requires a visual inspection and actually squeezing and fondling the breasts (maybe an x-ray for good measure).
The second asks only that the woman remove her jewelry before going to the airport. In other words, that she be treated precisely the same as every other passenger.
That you seem to prefer option A is fascinating and makes me wonder what you’re proudly boasting on your own nipples. You’re taking this just a tad too seriously and way too personally.
If it beeps, take it off. Case closed. Or have some medical certification if its internal.
Meanwhile, you just inconvenienced countless other passengers.
And despite your breathless hyperbolic rhetoric, there is no “punishment” for non-conformity. You just make a choice and accept the outcome. If you insist on not following airline rules, you find other transport.
What you call punishment most of us adults call “reality.”
Professor Blather on March 28, 2008 at 12:57 PM
This is an OUTRAGE. This woman’s nipple rings were NOT going to explode the airplane. She was CRYING as they were being taken out. Did TSA REALLY think they were preventing a terrorist attack? NO – THEY DID NOT – they were being a**holes, they thought this was funny…not only were they not doing their jobs, they were being cruel.
Let’s FOCUS on what their job is: to prevent airplanes from blowing up. If a piece of metal the size of a nipple ring is in fact capable of blowing up an airliner, then fine, I agree, moving forward, NO ONE is allowed to have any metal object the size of a nipple ring or larger on an airplane. no watches, no laptops, nothing.
Get real. What is wrong with you people? We want government to get OUT of our lives unless it is absolutely necessary. I personally wouldn’t be caught dead with body piercings, but that’s my right, my choice. That woman’s right to have whatever body piercings is HER choice, and it’s as valuable as my right not to.
JustTruth101 on March 28, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Has no one here yet mentioned the scene from “Freebie and the Bean”? A transvestite killed (or attempted to kill) someone with spikes that popped out of his fake boobs. And, if I recall correctly, that scene was in a train station – public transportation.
All that said, this is freakin’ RIDICULOUS. My experiences with TSA in the past have been similarly foolish. They spent 20 minutes patting down and inspecting my 78-year-old mom in her wheelchair, causing her to miss her flight.
Most recently, I have seen more sensibility by TSA – they actually had spare baggies available for those dangerous liquids and gels that were mis-packed. But this has been the exception, not the rule.
connertown on March 28, 2008 at 12:59 PM
Yes, it was an OUTRAGE that they didn’t let her walk to the plane after the detector went off. and REALLY an OUTRAGE that she CRIED while she took her own piercing off. An OUTRAGE I tell you. I’m sure that she REALLY CRIED when the piercer pierced her nipples as well and that was also an OUTRAGE! It’s an OUTRAGE when the TFA is being cruel. Don’t be cruel, TSA, don’t be cruel.
… OUTRAGE!
wise_man on March 28, 2008 at 1:01 PM
According to her Hollywood shyster, you mean. I suspect TSA testimony will be rather different.
I assume you believe O.J. was chipping golf balls and cut his hand on a hotel room glass, too, right? After all – that was his lawyers’ version of events.
As for the rest – read the thread first, then comment. You’re missing the issues entirely.
Professor Blather on March 28, 2008 at 1:03 PM
Thank you for your thoughtful analysis. Then you agree that all metal the size of nipple rings or larger should be banned from all airflight moving forward?
JustTruth101 on March 28, 2008 at 1:04 PM
And it’s an even bigger OUTRAGE that I’m not clever enough to think up some equally silly way to claim victimhood and hire Gloria Allred.
Hmmm. I wonder if this will be like the goofy “too hot” Southwest scandals … and we’ll now have a couple weeks of pierced-nipple incidents at the airport …
I gotta go get something pierced, quick. Cha-ching.
Professor Blather on March 28, 2008 at 1:05 PM
No, you are missing the point entirely. If she was crying as she was taking them out, that is evidence that she was not lying that they were adhered to her body.
The point of airport security is to prevent blowing up airplanes. Do you believe then that nipple rings can blow up ariplanes, and do you join wise_man that all metal objects should be banned?
JustTruth101 on March 28, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Pay attention. That is decidedly not the issue.
The question at issue is: whether metallic objects that set off the detector and which cannot be removed – thus leaving in doubt whether those objects are, in fact, what triggered the detector – should be allowed on airplanes.
If you can find a way to prove beyond doubt that it is the nipple rings and only the nipple rings triggering the detector, then nobody here would have a problem with it.
Which you’d know if you read the thread.
Professor Blather on March 28, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Sorry, you have no right to put other people’s lives in danger because you want to wear you sexual body piercings which won’t let you clear the metal detector. Unless you can tell me how to guarantee it was the rings setting off the detector without removing them you argument is unconvincing.
TheBigOldDog on March 28, 2008 at 1:08 PM
See post above. You’re still completely missing the issue as its been restated a dozen times.
Again again – you are repeating only the side of the story told by Gloria Allred. If you believe it to be unquestionable truth, I have a bridge to sell you.
Professor Blather on March 28, 2008 at 1:08 PM
I flew out of Lubbock a few weeks ago. I had a six ounce bottle of Listerine in my carryon. I’ve flown MANY times with that bottle, always making sure it was less than half full (less than three ounces of Listerine in the bottle). It had been a long trip and I was down to maybe a quarter inch. The TSA guy flagged it. Told me I had to give it up or take it back to my car. (No problem, let me fly and I’ll put it in my car [truck] which is parked at the airport in Indianapolis.) I looked him in the eye and asked him if he really could, with a straight face, tell me there was more than three ounces of liquid in that bottle. (That’s a clear plastic bottle. Original label, marked six ounces, with just a bit sloshing around the bottom.) He looked back at me and said “yes”.
Lying scum.
I left the very dangerous bottle in Lubbock.
I really dislike government thugs.
Brian Paasch on March 28, 2008 at 1:08 PM
Again – there’s the issue. As I just said.
If you can somehow prove what exactly is and is not triggering the detector, you can wear any damn thing you want.
Professor Blather on March 28, 2008 at 1:09 PM
You seem to be the kind of person that will only stick up for the rights of the “right kind” of people. I guess people that have body piercings aren’t the kind of people. If you could get past your prejudices and superiority complex, you might get the point of equal rights for all people, and yes, dear one, even people who you don’t think are good enough to treat as human beings.
JustTruth101 on March 28, 2008 at 1:10 PM
Holy straw man, my intellectually dishonest (and intellectually lazy) friend!
Professor Blather on March 28, 2008 at 1:11 PM
IF the wand only went off at her breasts, and she was willing to do a body search, and no other part of her body triggered the wand, then why couldn’t they let her go through? I will concede that if the metal detector found OTHER metallic objects, that she would have to take the nipple rings out.
JustTruth101 on March 28, 2008 at 1:13 PM
Read. The. Thread.
Professor Blather on March 28, 2008 at 1:14 PM
I fly all the time for business. The TSA, like any bureacracy, is focused on rules and procedures, not the abstract goal of security. That’s why they pat down grandmothers. It’s the same sad story we’ve heard a thousand times: what starts out as a well-intentioned idea gets ossified into a myopic, rule-bound institution at the expense of the original idea.
Bad guys can get material through security with ease. Audits and tests by reporters show that routinely 70-90% of the time dangerous material gets passed the TSA. All those people in uniforms with their gloves and wands provide the appearence of security at great expense and immeasurable annoyance.
Vote Sauron 08 on March 28, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Winner
In a word yes. Some piercings can’t just simply be removed.
Nope. Depends on when it was done I guess.
- The Cat
P.S. Some of the posters here should just move to Boston where LEDs are a crime.
MirCat on March 28, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Hmmm, you still haven’t answered whether all metal objects the size of nipple rings or larger should be barred from all airflight. Doesn’t that make you intellectually dishonest (and intellectually lazy)?
JustTruth101 on March 28, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Did anybody see the set of torpedos those safety ring fuses were attached to? Could have taken out the whole airport if one of those things had gone off!!!
Common sense is dead in this country….
serenity on March 28, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Answer. My. Question.
Hmmm, you still haven’t answered whether all metal objects the size of nipple rings or larger should be barred from all airflight.
JustTruth101 on March 28, 2008 at 1:15 PM
I want them to do what their own guidelines tell them to do. If they say squeeze the breasts, then squeeze the breasts. If a body cavity search is called for then do one according to their guidelines. If this is to be left up to each individual screener then don’t waste time and money printing rules and regulations that aren’t going to be followed.
BTW, when I fly I do exactly what you say. I remove everything (no piercings) I don’t actually need and put them in my luggage and everything else goes in the containers. I don’t really sympathise with the woman but I do believe that you can’t have individuals (in this case the TSA employees) deciding on whims which rules and regulations they want to obey. That’s called anarchy.
TooTall on March 28, 2008 at 1:16 PM
Which part of the following did you NOT understand?
Care to man up and just admit you misunderstood the argument? Or will you continue with the entertaining attempts at building goofy straw men?
Read carefully. Choose wisely. Or continue to entertain.
Professor Blather on March 28, 2008 at 1:17 PM
Ih my God, call the ACLU. The woman couldn’t get on the plane until she cleared a metal detector! What’s next, not being able to drive until you pass a driving test? When will it all end?!
TheBigOldDog on March 28, 2008 at 1:17 PM
I already answered that, what is wrong with you? READ
JustTruth101 on March 28, 2008 at 1:17 PM
Apparently “continue to entertain” was your choice. Carry on.
If you have an honest question that hasn’t been answered, I’m sure it will be addressed.
Professor Blather on March 28, 2008 at 1:18 PM
She was a dangerous Ho’orrist and needed to be stopped.
The Department of HOmeland Security needs to investigate.
GoodBoy on March 28, 2008 at 1:19 PM
Ed, I read your update and I agreed with it at first. But then I thought… do we really want the TSA screeners making on-the-spot decisions about what they think is really a threat and disregarding the rules based on their judegement as opposed to DHS? Isn’t that the point to having the rules and guidelines? After all, the harmless looking jewelry just might be one component of a larger device. Isn’t the point that — they don’t know and they don’t want to take any chances. It’s not a “no jewelry policy” it’s a “anything that sets off the metal detectors has to be scanned” policy. Isn’t that why they make us remove our belts (because of the buckle)? You’re right that TSA should be focused on threats. And that is more difficult for them to do when they have to deal with people setting off the metal detectors with their nipple rings and when they become short-staffed because a team member has to do a private search because a woman doesn’t want to take her jewelry out and scan it. It’s hard for me to have sympathy for someone who is distracting security agents at an airport and holding up everyone in line behind her.
Spolitics on March 28, 2008 at 1:19 PM
Maybe it was the little tag on the rings that said “pull here for detonation” that caused them alarm.
And don’t they have a device to “sniff” out plastique? Maybe those implants set off an alarm?
*
It just shows you where the real boobs are in the TSA.
right2bright on March 28, 2008 at 1:19 PM
She was so embarrassed and humiliated by the experience that she immediately ran out and hired media-whore Gloria Allred to splatter the story across the international news media. Then she posed for pictures next to a mannequin that shows what kind of jewelry she has in her nipples. Yeah, I’m not buyin’ the emotional distress thing.
aero on March 28, 2008 at 1:20 PM
So, in your considered opinion, it’s preferable to have TSA agents squeezing breasts than simply asking the person to remove their rings? Brilliant!
TheBigOldDog on March 28, 2008 at 1:21 PM
Bingo. Exactly.
Professor Blather on March 28, 2008 at 1:22 PM
You want to have security on planes? Fine, here are the procedures:
1. Screen passengers against known terrorist ethnic, racial, and geographical backgrounds, and interrogate and strip search all matches.
2. Ban all carry-on bags, and allow nothing in pockets.
3. If you set off the metal detector, and don’t have a prosthetic device accompanied by an attested document to prove it, you don’t board.
.
I have a feeling that the above steps will not be taken, so those of you who belive in the efficacy of TSA, keep whistling in the dark.
Think_b4_speaking on March 28, 2008 at 1:23 PM
Oh, hush. She was traumatized, I tell you. Traumatized.
Professor Blather on March 28, 2008 at 1:23 PM
Big Dog and Blather, do you really believe that all metal objects the size of nipple rings or larger should be banned form all flight? I’ve asked you a number of times, and I’m still waiting for an answer.
JustTruth101 on March 28, 2008 at 1:24 PM
That’s what they thought about shoes too until Richard Reed.
That’s what they thought about radios until Lockerbee.
That;s what they thought about pregnant women until that incident in Israel.
That’s what they though about baby bottles until they found that group in London.
Let em all on and let God sort em out I say!
TheBigOldDog on March 28, 2008 at 1:24 PM
Sadly, I think steps much like those will be taken. (Hopefully they’re already taking step 3 – that’s what we’re discussing now).
But they’ll take the other steps too late. After the next tragedy.
Just like we aren’t going to get serious about port security or border security until the worst happens. Then we’ll shut the barn door – when the horse has already escaped.
Professor Blather on March 28, 2008 at 1:25 PM
It is my unbiased decision that anything Gloria is involved in is a scam; she is a vile blood-sucking, bottom feeding, low-life, publicity seeking whore.
I think that is what she called herself on her MySpace, if not; it is still an unbiased and objective statement.
right2bright on March 28, 2008 at 1:25 PM
I agree completely. If the purpose is safety, then let’s be safe and the same rules should apply to all. If nipple rings have to be removed, so should earrings, necklaces, watches, etc.
JustTruth101 on March 28, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Funny, you keep posting, but you won’t answer this question.
JustTruth101 on March 28, 2008 at 1:26 PM
You really need to read the posts. The issue is, you have NO IDEA what is setting off the detectors. That’s why you have the rings taken out and have the person pass through the detectors again to make sure it is just the harmless rings.
TheBigOldDog on March 28, 2008 at 1:26 PM
WTF are you talking about? Go back to about the 5th post in this thread and then count the number of times this question has been answered over and over by the two of us.
TheBigOldDog on March 28, 2008 at 1:28 PM
C’mon, kid. Asked and answered, by both of us, repeatedly. I already posted for you my own own response. What’s wrong with you?
Last time: as far as I’m concerned, you can bring any damn thing you want on a plane – once you prove THAT is the thing setting off the detector, and that it is NOT a threat.
What part of this do you not understand?
The issue here that you still can’t seem to grasp is how to handle a woman setting off the detector, who cannot or will not remove the item apparently setting off the detector, and leaving the agents less than certain what exactly is setting it off.
In other words – do they or don’t they let a person on a plane who is STILL setting off the detector.
That’s the only issue here.
Want to ask me again?
Professor Blather on March 28, 2008 at 1:28 PM
No, I’ve read the posts, you haven’t read mine, yet you keep addressing me. I posted a while ago that if the wand ONLY went off at her breasts, and no other part of her body, and showed the female officer, which she supposedly agreed to do, show her that they could not be removed, then that should have sufficed. Do you disagree?
JustTruth101 on March 28, 2008 at 1:29 PM
Indeed.
In fact, she was onto this one so fast – and its so damn silly – that I almost (almost!) wouldn’t be surprised to find out it was planned from the beginning.
You gotta give her credit for clever marketing. She’s found her niche.
Professor Blather on March 28, 2008 at 1:30 PM
How do you know she does not have explosive implants? That’s the point. You have to be sure it’s only the rings.
TheBigOldDog on March 28, 2008 at 1:30 PM
Don’t mis-understand my sarcasm, anyone stepping onto a plane needs to follow guidelines. They are pretty obvious. As far as crying, I have seen some people remove their shoes, and what I saw and smelt, brought tears to my eyes. I guarantee, there would be no pleasure strip searching that women by the looks of her…
As usual (but not always), I agree with PB…especially since he will be defending my ass for the next several years.
right2bright on March 28, 2008 at 1:30 PM
Give up, BigOlDog. She’s obviously just trolling.
Last time, my ironically named pal JustTruth. As long as you can KNOW with certainty that ONLY the nipple rings (or medal of ANY size) is what’s triggering the detector … nobody disagrees.
Are you picking this up yet? Or will you ask the same question yet again?
Professor Blather on March 28, 2008 at 1:31 PM
.
Professor, their version of step 3 and mine are a bit different. I really don’t trust the judgement of the average TSA employee. If they really felt she was a threat, they should have denied her entry to the gates, instead of just having her pull the metal. I would rather have them being publicized for denying someone access to a gate, than publicized for making passengers gyrate to get on board.
Think_b4_speaking on March 28, 2008 at 1:32 PM
Then Gloria would have been suing them for discrimination for not letting her prove she wasn’t a threat. Come on, you know the way this works…And let’s get totally real here, they didn’t ask her to remove a surgically implanted medial device here, they asked here to remove an earring from her nipples. Something that shouldn’t be difficult or painful unless your some drama queen looking for some publicity.
TheBigOldDog on March 28, 2008 at 1:36 PM
I don’t disagree. Some here seem to think they have an inalienable right to fly on a commercial airliner. They don’t.
If the airline decides you aren’t flying, you aren’t flying. Find another means of travel. You aren’t being imprisoned or fined; you’re simply not being permitted to use a company’s services.
I know it sucks. I know its unfair sometimes. I know its inconvenient for all of us. But I’m with you. I’d rather them just bar entry when in doubt.
I find it hard to believe how quickly some jump to describe the TSA as over-reacting, when the costs of under-reacting are so very high.
You have to wonder: if the agents under-reacted and the worst happened … how many here would agree with the under-reaction, if it was their family on the plane?
I’d truly love to let the agents on duty in Boston Logan on the morning of 9/11 read this thread and see what they think. I wonder if they wish they’d been a little overzealous that day.
Professor Blather on March 28, 2008 at 1:38 PM
I’m not trolling, that’s an unfair accusation.
I’m thinking over the explosive implants argument…I concede that’s a pretty good reason to keep her off the plane…I haven’t answered yet because I want to give a thoughtful answer before responding…it still seems to me that if the only metal on her breasts are the jewelry, she should have been allowed to fly…but that is a big if…how would TSA know she doesn’t have implants.
Now that I have responded, I’m sure my concession will bring many insults…
JustTruth101 on March 28, 2008 at 1:39 PM
COMMON SENSE PEOPLE!
If you thought these were bombs would you really have had her pull the pins?
- The Cat
MirCat on March 28, 2008 at 1:40 PM
Hint, they didn’t have anything one them. The due diligence is on those that hired the support crew (that planted the box cutters), those that supply Visas and (should) follow up on them. The FBI when reported about the suspicious activity at the flight school.
If we are leaving our security in the hands of customer service . . .
- The Cat
P.S. I used to work customer service so I have absolute moral authority to say that :P
P.P.S.
I agree with that guy.
MirCat on March 28, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Nothing to insult. You were plainly wrong. Congrats on admitting it.
Which was our point all along. If she really can’t remove them, she has to prove its the rings triggering the detector. The burden is on her.
It’s a pretty simple rule. No getting on board if the detector buzzes. Unless you can 1) take off the item, or 2) prove the item isn’t a threat.
Where is the problem with that?
The only alternative is to allow the agent to – unilaterally – decide which items may or may not be threats. As Spolitics noted up there, I’m not sure I want the average TSA agent making that call. What if they get it wrong? It seems safer to stick with: remove the item, or don’t fly. Period.
And since I know nothing about nipple rings, I have no idea how difficult (or not) that might be. What – are they permanent? You get them once and have them for life?
Remind me not to get a nipple ring.
As far as proving safety of the boobage … well, that would at least involve some serious fondling and squeezing. Is that REALLY a better alternative? Getting felt up?
Maybe they could take x-rays? Is that safe?
I dunno. I suppose they’ll get a lot of applicants when Head Boob Squeezer jobs open up.
The other alternative – if it beeps, take if off – sure seems a lot simpler, easier, and less sexually harassing.
Professor Blather on March 28, 2008 at 1:46 PM
There’s the true crime, folks. Nipple rings. 37.
fourstringfuror on March 28, 2008 at 1:46 PM
I think we all know that, after the months of 24 hour coverage.
But you have to wonder what might have happened if one of them had even been pulled aside to answer a couple questions. Read thinkB4speaking’s list up there – that’s what I was referring to.
Not that I’m trying to start the ancient profiling debate.
Professor Blather on March 28, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Most likely detonation trigger would be electrical, so you’d put a 9V battery across the rings….pulling the rings out on the ground in a separate room is a lot safer than assuming you know it’s just the rings and letting her bored the plane. If they did that and she brought down the plane you’d all be on here screaming for blood.
TheBigOldDog on March 28, 2008 at 1:51 PM
You realize, of course, that when some terrorist detonates the first breast implant bomb … I’m blaming you for giving them the idea.
Professor Blather on March 28, 2008 at 1:52 PM
Those things could put someone’s eye out! How’s that for your security threat Ed? ;)
Oh, no pity from me. She had them painfully reinserted through scar tissue. She evidently doesn’t mind a little discomfort.
wytammic on March 28, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Hint you have no idea what you’re talking about. I’m in Boston and I’ve seen interviews with the agents in Maine in MA and they are destroyed human beings. Destroyed. I forget if it was the guy at Logan or Portland, but he in particular is emotionally wrecked. He knew something was up and he wishes he had done more. So much for that theory. Here we have a case where a woman can’t clear the metal detector and these people are supposed to let her on and just deal with the emotional consequences for the rest of their lives if they assumed wrong. Nice.
TheBigOldDog on March 28, 2008 at 1:56 PM
Just FYI, it’s the container size that matters, not the amount that’s in it. I’m sure the rule is written that way so TSA agents don’t have to spend time arguing with people about how much is in their bottle. Target carries travel sizes of just about everything. Buy it once and then reuse that bottle. Problem solved. The rules seemed to be geared in part to keeping the lines effecient. Like putting your toiletries in a plastic ziplock bag. Obvisouly, that’s so stuff isn’t spilling in the bins and bottles are not rolling around.
Spolitics on March 28, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Nay, it’s not like they haven’t tried something similar already. You have to blame the pregnant woman in Israel and all the Jihad MDs in London for the idea. My conscience is clear ;)
TheBigOldDog on March 28, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Wow. That sort of says it all.
I always wondered about those guys.
Professor Blather on March 28, 2008 at 2:02 PM
She’ll win the lawsuit and the next terrorist incident will involve the Breast Bomb or the dreaded Vagina missile.
Zaire67 on March 28, 2008 at 2:07 PM
Let’s tell the truth: this whole thread was an excuse to talk about nipples at great length.
You boobs.
Have a great weekend – don’t pierce anything I wouldn’t!
Professor Blather on March 28, 2008 at 2:18 PM
nipple-gate
right2bright on March 28, 2008 at 2:31 PM
There was a story a few years back in Reason magazine about TSA. TSA’s motto is “Dominate, Intimidate, Control”.
A friend of my Mom’s worked for TSA for three months and left. The reason: she just couldn’t continue to be that mean to people. Remember, TSA was the Administration caving to the lefties that TSA had to unionized or no Patriot Act.
And the reason for all this crap? A conversation between the heads of security of United and El Al. “Why is it that El Al has never had a hijacking?” “Because you Americans screen for weapons. We at El Al screen for terrorists.”
And remember, it is NOT racial profiling. It’s accurately called statistical profiling.
Amendment X on March 28, 2008 at 2:36 PM
Don’t be disingenuous. Show me where I said that. I said I want them to adhere to their own rules and regulations. I never stated which option would be best. Straw man argument on your part.
TooTall on March 28, 2008 at 2:38 PM
This article makes me feel warm and comfy knowing the TSA hires only the most highly educated and logical thinking people that $10 an hour can attract.
I have no doubt those TSA employees determined the nipple ring was the pull ring of a detonator in a C-4 breast implant.
Helloyawl on March 28, 2008 at 2:40 PM
Right, which requires them to squeeze the woman’s breast which is something that is completely inappropriate and no TSA agent should be forced to do because some narcissistic bitch looking for publicity want to make a federal case out of being asked to remove earring through her nipples.
What’s more reasonable, asking somebody to remove earrings from the nipples – something that should be easy by design or asking the woman to lift her shirt so some TSA agent can squeeze her breasts?
You act like they asked her to cut of her arm or something. We are talking about earrings here. Something designed to be taken off and put on easily. But, in your world they are A-holes for asking her to do something reasonable so they can ensure the safety of everybody else on that plane who passed through security without a problem.
TheBigOldDog on March 28, 2008 at 3:08 PM
Right, which requires them to squeeze the woman’s breast which is something that is completely inappropriate and no TSA agent should be forced to do because some narcissistic jerk looking for publicity want to make a federal case out of being asked to remove earring through her nipples.
What’s more reasonable, asking somebody to remove earrings from the nipples – something that should be easy by design or asking the woman to lift her shirt so some TSA agent can squeeze her breasts?
You act like they asked her to cut of her arm or something. We are talking about earrings here. Something designed to be taken off and put on easily. But, in your world they are A-holes for asking her to do something reasonable so they can ensure the safety of everybody else on that plane who passed through security without a problem.
TheBigOldDog on March 28, 2008 at 3:08 PM
And you act like that is a ludicrous impossibility despite all the evidence of the past 8 years to the contrary.
TheBigOldDog on March 28, 2008 at 3:10 PM
Nipples at great length don’t need an excuse to be talked about.
James on March 28, 2008 at 3:10 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »