Video: TSA security protocols revealed!

posted at 11:36 am on December 15, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

It was probably one smart-ass remark, but the TSA supervisor who made it will certainly look like a boob in court when attempting to defend it. Mediaite picks up on a story reported over the weekend by KOB in Albuquerque about a lawsuit filed by a woman who endured a lengthy patdown by TSA in an attempt to bust her for something.  The woman’s 17-year-old son managed to avoid getting manhandled and asked why his mother got all of the attention instead.  The supervisor’s alleged reply will nurse this TSA controversy a little farther:

“Heavily concentrating on my breast area where I told her I had a mastectomy the year previous and in [sic] just seemed to go on and on,” said Durso.

She says she felt humiliated as the extensive pat-down happened in front of her 17 year old son and hundreds of other travelers.

“I felt as though I didn’t have any rights other than I had to stand there and let them do what they want to do to my body,” Durso continued.

She says she knew her rights had been violated so she asked to speak to a supervisor who she thought would help.

All the while her son stood by her side and couldn’t remain silent anymore

“My son, who I’m very proud of spoke up and said ‘I went through the metal detector and I did not get a pat-down’ to which the supervisor said ‘well you don’t have boobs’,” she said.

That statement was the last straw for Durso – so she contacted the lawfirm of Drinker, Biddle and Reath. Her attorney, Alex Brodsky, says this whole ordeal violates her 4th Amendment rights which protects Americans from unreasonable search and seizure.

Ah, the boobs exception to the 4th Amendment!  Well, say no more.  Thankfully, TSA will keep all of us safe from breasts while we fly the friendly skies.

The comment was almost certainly a snarky comeback to the challenge to TSA’s authoritah, but somehow that doesn’t make it much better.  And unfortunately for the TSA and the supervisor in question, those snarky little comebacks have weight when it comes to trials and determination of motives.

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

Has anyone tracked the locations of these incidents to see if there’s a geographic pattern?

INC on December 15, 2010 at 11:41 AM

Hey those TSA workers don’t get paid enough, they need some “french” benefits as they say on the Office.

Mr. Joe on December 15, 2010 at 11:41 AM

Come to think of it, the TSA is like one big disfunctional Office.

Mr. Joe on December 15, 2010 at 11:41 AM

Well, there was certainly a boob involved, but it wasn’t on the woman being subjected to this nonsense!

UnderstandingisPower on December 15, 2010 at 11:41 AM

Will women who have lost a breast to cancer, and wear a prosthesis be required to remove the appliance and have it subjected to chemical analysis, or can the TSA agents tell the difference between plastic and explosives simply by touching it?

Skandia Recluse on December 15, 2010 at 11:41 AM

All the same snarky remarks and other abuse that we are getting at airport security we could soon be getting on the roadside.

We have no “right” to fly, anymore than we have a right to drive on public roads.

Therefore, they can touch our junk or lovingly caress our boobs on I95 just because, you know, national security and safely and all.

The same reasons, the same treatment, just because.

This will not end well.

Akzed on December 15, 2010 at 11:45 AM

So even knowing that the woman had a masectomy, the response was “you don’t have boobs”?

It would have been inappropriate under other circumstances. In light of her masectomy, it’s not only flippant, dismissive and snarky, but cruel as well.

DrAllecon on December 15, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Exactly how many females have been directly involved in committing terror attacks around the globe? It has to be a number so small that it is statistically insignificant.

TSA is groping a person who does not conform to ANY standard model of someone who would be considered a threat. Her son, who does fit several stereotypes since he’s a young male, get’s ignored.

Hey! at least the TSA is being pro-active for once. There has not been a single boobie bomb attack yet but I am damn proud that my government seems hell-bent on finding one.

Mord on December 15, 2010 at 11:48 AM

When TSA agents encounter a passenger wearing a colostomy, will the agents be required to open the appliance and sniff the contents to determine the presence of liquid explosives, or will the agents be permitted to accept the word of the passenger?

Skandia Recluse on December 15, 2010 at 11:51 AM

And unfortunately for the TSA and the supervisor in question, those snarky little comebacks have weight when it comes to trials and determination of motives.

You’re d@mn right they do, and once we lose our rights as legal citizens of this country….well, I think we all know already. This kind of police state crap needs to end, NOW!!!

I’m all for security, but this is bogus from beginning to end.

capejasmine on December 15, 2010 at 11:51 AM

Mord on December 15, 2010 at 11:48 AM

What are you talking about? Middle-age American women traveling with their children are the greatest threat to America since, like, ever!

On a related note, don’t dare stop the promotion of a jihadist who has infiltrated the military. That would be discriminatory.

amerpundit on December 15, 2010 at 11:53 AM

I’m “going thru the line” this afternoon through SF on my way to San Diego. Hope the TSA has a “supermodel” to pat my stuff down—I could use the excitement.

(That’s what a real “thrill up the leg” is Chrissy)

Rovin on December 15, 2010 at 11:53 AM

The Brickhouse Alert System is alive and well at the airport.

Electrongod on December 15, 2010 at 11:56 AM

Mord on December 15, 2010 at 11:48 AM

As much as I would like to agree with you on the stupidity of airport screening, I do have to take issue with your logic. The fact that we don’t have much of a record of women terrorists (although the Israelis have met with female suicide bombers) is no reason to not search women as thoroughly as men.

One of our biggest problems is that we continually fight the previous battle. Unless you can think of why a woman would not make a effective terrorist, then I see it as good policy to search women as well. Searching only those who fit yesterday’s profile is to continue to fight the previous battle and leaves us exposed to the enemy’s ability to learn and adapt.

MJBrutus on December 15, 2010 at 11:56 AM

So, with the end of DADT on the horizon, can we now ask the TSA agent about to grope us if they are gay? Personally, I would prefer to be groped by someone not likely to get some jollies during the whole affair. Maybe the penile plethysmographs are being used on the wrong clientele.

Actually, I’d prefer not being groped except by my own choice — which is why I avoid flying.

GnuBreed on December 15, 2010 at 11:59 AM

We have no “right” to fly, anymore than we have a right to drive on public roads.

Therefore, they can touch our junk or lovingly caress our boobs on I95 just because, you know, national security and safely and all.

The same reasons, the same treatment, just because.

This will not end well.

Akzed on December 15, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Funny isn’t it? When I read that part in the 4′th amendment that says, “… shall be secure in their persons …” I can’t find any clause or phrase that states, “except when traveling on publicly funded roads or other places where there is no outstanding right for the people to be”

Must be one of those penumbra-y or emanation-y thingies that us unwashed masses don’t understand.

AZfederalist on December 15, 2010 at 12:00 PM

We’ve descended into a facist police state where the “useful idiots” are in charge of implementing the policies of the statists.

PatriotRider on December 15, 2010 at 12:01 PM

What do you mean, “supermodels hardest hit”? They don’t have boobs.

disa on December 15, 2010 at 12:02 PM

When can we as a Nation grow up?

The TSA peep-show/pat-down stuff does nothing to prevent terrorists from committing ungodly nasty crimes.

It does serve to show the “people” that billions of their tax dolalrs are being used to do “something.”

coldwarrior on December 15, 2010 at 12:03 PM

Boobs are instinctively drawn to other boobs.

RBMN on December 15, 2010 at 12:05 PM

I repeat my request: Show me one instance where TSA actions have prevented a terrorist from boarding an aircraft.

Vashta.Nerada on December 15, 2010 at 12:09 PM

It seems to me it is high time to move to privatizing airport security.

Giving these people what are essentially police powers, with wide latitude and little oversight is a recipe for disaster.

A private company, however, would be focused on both aspects of the security process – stopping terrorists and annoying customers as little as possible as inattention to either would get your contract canceled.

One suggestion though to go along with this is a law taking “racial profiling” suits out of the authority of the courts – otherwise we’ll just see the Islamists engage in lawfare until they get what they want.

18-1 on December 15, 2010 at 12:10 PM

AZfederalist on December 15, 2010 at 12:00 PM

Out Constitution protects us against unreasonable search and seizure. Now, I’m sorry but that gives the government some latitude. Was it reasonable (prior to the current pat downs and porn booths) for the TSA to search us with metal detectors? I don’t remember a whole lot of people saying it wasn’t.

What has changed is that the methods have gotten more intrusive, but the threats have also escalated. The question is one of the reasonability of the current techniques versus the threat to public safety. That standard leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

MJBrutus on December 15, 2010 at 12:12 PM

Will women who have lost a breast to cancer, and wear a prosthesis be required to remove the appliance and have it subjected to chemical analysis, or can the TSA agents tell the difference between plastic and explosives simply by touching it?

Skandia Recluse on December 15, 2010 at 11:41 AM

An article in The Atlantic pointed out that you can bring 12oz bottles of medical liquids on flights, and of course the TSA makes essentially no effort to determine what is actually in those bottles. (It’s not like they can keep a chemical laboratory on hand at every screening site, after all.) Just one more way in which the whole process is a joke that doesn’t provide real security. But does provide real inconvenience and humiliation.

David Shane on December 15, 2010 at 12:13 PM

The TSA are not doing enough to keep us safe.

I notice that much of their scanning, screening, pat downs, gropings, etc., are taking place in plain view of everyon else and no one else steps in to help protect their fellow human beings, much like what happens on the street when a woman, man, or child is assaulted, mugged, raped, etc. No one comes to their aid, or almost never does anyone help.

Hundres of people pass by, ignoring the poor woman or man in the time out chair, so to speak, getting hasseled by TSA.

Anyway, as I said, the TSA is not doing enough to keep us safe.

Before there were metal detectors and x-raying of carry-on baggage, confiscation of small bottles of water, and harassing breast feeding mothers.

Now they have back scatter x-ray machines to take nude pornographic images of us, as well as sexual molestation pat-downs which police officers would be arrested and sent to prison for.

If the TSA thinks we need those to be safer, then they must follow that logic further and realize that we need more invasive procedures, otherwise we are not being screened thoroughly enough.

We must all undergoe endoscopes, colonoscopies, head, chest, and abdominal deep scans, as well as rectal, vaginal, and urethral exams, which would include cystoscopes, ultrasounds, etc.

We should all be subject to dopplar sound examinations to hear foreign objects or explosive timing devices.

They should have electronic torture devices, whips, whipping posts, thumb screws, dunk tanks, and the rack, all there to use to employ deeper screenings on us.

They might as well torment our wives and children before our eyes to see if we “talk” and give up the goods, just to be certain we are not intending any terrorism.

If they don’t try to loosen our tongues, along with more invasive examinations, are they really doing enough?

Unless we are subjected to such things, can the TSA really say they are doing enough to keep us safe?

Of course the entire scenario I stated is absurd!

Nevertheless, can’t people see how absurd the entire TSA practice is already?

Go to the airport, get molested and abused by a rent-a-frisker with less qualifications, less training, less screening than a police officer, and the TSA groper-sexual molester does not go to prison, you get arrested and fined for resisting, along with missing your flight, while the police officer would be taken off duty, arrested, and placed in prison for a very long time for anything close to what the TSA engage in.

It has to stop

William2006 on December 15, 2010 at 12:13 PM

I’m also concerned about the viability of the fast-food industry. How are they able to hire competent employees when the TSA is taking them all?

slickwillie2001 on December 15, 2010 at 12:16 PM

Bomb sniffing dogs and bomb sniffing pigs…

Both have been found to be highly successful in finding explosives, and identifying anyone who has recently handled explosives.

Why not have roving patrols of dogs and pigs walking through our airports…and then focus in on those the dogs and pigs alert to?

Sure, some might be offended being sniffed by a dog, or a pig, but at least the dogs or pigs would not discriminate, nor get their jollies doing a pat-down on some babe…or child.

And we wouldn’t have to deal with certain classes of travelers being exempt because of religon or status. Much more democratic.

coldwarrior on December 15, 2010 at 12:17 PM

How about this: I hold a Taser against the crotch of the TSA agent who has decided my junk needs a frisking; they go too far and I pull the trigger. Guaranteed they will be VERY gentle.

Bishop on December 15, 2010 at 12:17 PM

‘I went through the metal detector and I did not get a pat-down’ to which the supervisor said ‘well you don’t have boobs’,” she said.

So Michael Moore will be patted down on every flight, right?

portlandon on December 15, 2010 at 12:22 PM

Hey, if we don’t let them grab our junk, then the terrorists will have won!

Nethicus on December 15, 2010 at 12:25 PM

This kind of crap will continue until the public says “ENOUGH!” and refuses to fly.

Once the airlines get hit in the pocket, you can damned well bet the politicians will get the message real fast.

GarandFan on December 15, 2010 at 12:35 PM

Wait, no dedicated Patriots here who are going to tell us this is absolutely necessary for safety? Well, since they’re not online yet, I’ll get my usual response to any TSA story out. Abolish the bloody thing, fire everyone, and close the offices permanently.

Snake307 on December 15, 2010 at 12:39 PM

I’ve flown nearly one million miles over the last nine years and I went along with the magnetometer, taking off my shoes, limiting my liquids, taking out my laptop, the odd occasional patdown, but this latest Chertoff-touted X-Ray scanner, in tandem with the groping search, has crossed the line for me.

When you consider the exemptions now in place for those under 12 and now for flight crews – implemented in a panicky reaction after blowback – that destroys the entire premise that “everybody” must go through this.

Besides, cargo isn’t being screened yet, and don’t forget all of the airport employees, including the fast-food refugees working for the TSA, who are also exempt.

It’s security theater, pure and simple, and I hope no liberty-loving conservative make that silly “anything for our safety” comment. Leave that to the liberal boobs now defending it because it’s come in on Obama’s watch.

Drained Brain on December 15, 2010 at 12:41 PM

We have no “right” to fly, anymore than we have a right to drive on public roads.

Akzed on December 15, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Yes, actually we do. We have the right to open travel in the US, and SCOTUS has defined that as a “fundamental” right. Which means, anything Congress does to restrict that right must pass the highest level of scrutiny, which means that they have to show a compelling interest in the activity done, and that restriction must be no greater than necessary to effect the desired outcome. So, while they may have an argument that air traffic safety is a compelling interest and that touching our junk is not greater than necessary to attain that outcome, doing so on the roadways will be a stretch.

Of course, what has that ever meant before.

/gets back to studying Con Law for the upcoming bar exam.

ConservativeLawStudent on December 15, 2010 at 12:43 PM

Our family isn’t flying anymore. I will not stand for my wife and my son and soon to be born daughter to get molested by an individual with the IQ of cabbage. Road trips are more fun, anyways.

search4truth on December 15, 2010 at 12:47 PM

Skandia Recluse on December 15, 2010 at 11:51 AM

Hopefully, the person needing the bag will happily empty the contents on counter for the TSA moron.

oldleprechaun on December 15, 2010 at 12:49 PM

MJBrutus on December 15, 2010 at 11:56 AM

Yes Isreal has had to deal with a few female suicide bombers, there was also an incident in Iraq where AQ strapped remote detonated bombs on some local mentally handicapped women and set them off after sending them to a market. I believe a female suicide bomber killed a politician in pakistan a while back as well (I could be wrong, details are hazy) but TSA doesn’t search anyone in Isreal, Iraq, or anywhere but America. I’m not saying that there is no threat from women, but the threat from women is nearly non-existent, from a statistical standpoint.

I’m just pointing out the absurdity of treating everyone “equal” instead of logically targeting obvious groups of people for special scrutiny. These new screenings are a reaction to Abdulmutallib(the underwear bomber) and they are nearly a year overdue. The fact that the new searches where only started days after november 2nd should tell anyone who thinks about it that airport security was scaled back for political reasons for about 10 months. The scanners and enhanced pat-downs would not have caught the underwear bomber even if they had been in use way back then because they don’t use these procedures in the countries he came from. So it’s even more idiotic and insulting to be using them now.

Another point: TSA does not search airline employees that do not get on the planes. Baggage throwers or mechanics are the weakest points right now, not passengers. I think that, post-9-11 the terrorists realized that the same tactics would not work because some passengers will fight back therefore a hijacking is out of the question for a major attack like that again. The most that can be done now is bombing a plane in-flight. We have been lucky several times since 9-11 but absolutely NONE of it was because of the TSA. The TSA is just our politicians wanting us to know that they are “doing something”.

Mord on December 15, 2010 at 12:53 PM

Out Constitution protects us against unreasonable search and seizure. Now, I’m sorry but that gives the government some latitude. Was it reasonable (prior to the current pat downs and porn booths) for the TSA to search us with metal detectors? I don’t remember a whole lot of people saying it wasn’t.

MJBrutus on December 15, 2010 at 12:12 PM

Well, if a TSA agent fondling your genitals or a TSA agent viewing a naked scan of you does not trip the threshold as “unreasonable”, then I would be interested to get your view as to what you would consider to be unreasonable. It doesn’t get much more personal than that

AZfederalist on December 15, 2010 at 12:54 PM

Mord on December 15, 2010 at 12:53 PM

Most of your points are on the money and perceptive! Personally, I find most of the procedures to be ineffective and nothing more than “security theater” to make the public feel safer without actually making us so.

I disagree only on the line of reasoning that says we should search men more carefully than women or other such distinctions. The bad guys know their own tendencies and know that we know them. Allowing them to establish a pattern so that they can exploit our defenses by going against their known pattern at a time of their choosing is definitely in their playbook.

MJBrutus on December 15, 2010 at 12:59 PM

The next woman who gets felt up by the TSA goons should say, loudly “They’re real, and they’re fabulous!”

Vera on December 15, 2010 at 1:00 PM

AZfederalist on December 15, 2010 at 12:54 PM

My opinion of what is reasonable doesn’t matter. My only point is that the legal standard is not the kind of cut and dried proposition that you (and others) have made it out to be. Saying that it is unconstitutional without addressing the standard of resaonableness is a non sequitor.

MJBrutus on December 15, 2010 at 1:02 PM

Remember the diversity that makes this all worth while and count your blessings from Islam.

BL@KBIRD on December 15, 2010 at 1:11 PM

I quit flying when they began the shoes thing a few years ago. My 2003 Yukon has 167000 miles on it now. My next road trip is this weekend and I have sarah palin’s new book in audio to keep me company as I head for my cruise port in FL. One advantage to my stubbornness on this is I take the luggage and my flying family members next week don’t have extra luggage fees. That practically pays for all of the gas to get to/from the cruise port. I also get the opportunity to enjoy my gold status with Marriott. Win win.

karenhasfreedom on December 15, 2010 at 1:11 PM

Saying that it is unconstitutional without addressing the standard of resaonableness is a non sequitor.

MJBrutus on December 15, 2010 at 1:02 PM

While an exact dividing line may be gray, there is a world of difference between a magnetometer that reveals nothing except the presence of ferrous metal and actual physical violation of one’s private parts either manually or by x-ray scatter revealing every aspect of one’s naked body. As I said, it doesn’t get more personal than that.

Requoting, the 4′th amendment states, “The right of the people to be be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

How do you even come close to saying that another person handling one’s genitals is not unreasonable? If that is not unreasonable, then there is absolutely nothing that would not qualify. The fact that you can’t even come up with something you personally feel would be unreasonable is telling.

For perspective, can you imagine what would be happening if this had been implemented on Bush’s watch?

AZfederalist on December 15, 2010 at 1:13 PM

Apparently the TSA was looking for boobie traps.

pt on December 15, 2010 at 1:32 PM

Has anyone tracked the locations of these incidents to see if there’s a geographic pattern?

INC on December 15, 2010 at 11:41 AM

They happen in places in which some are allowed to touch others under color of law and for no particular reason, and in which those others are required to be still and permit it.

I have replied to you with restraint.

Kralizec on December 15, 2010 at 1:33 PM

Funny how the party of the people who don’t have any problems with this are highly correlated with the party of the people in power. I recall the dems speaking up vociferously against the Patriot act as an unspeakable invasion of privacy. But for this? – nothing.

Hear any Patriot act protests lately?

Didn’t have a problem, so much, with the Patriot Act because it was based on targeting suspected terrorists. (But, the TSA is doing this blindly!) Why can’t we apply the same logical standard to airports? The answer has become a dirty word. Starts with “P”, ends with “g”.

Thing is, there’s no reason to racially profile. Folks are right when they say that all terrorists aren’t muslims. (True, most, if not all, who try to blow up planes are – details.) We’re talking behavior profiling. Grannies aren’t trying to kill anyone with their knitting needles. Breastfeeding mothers aren’t secretly smuggling explosives in the kid’s milk. So, get a clue!

I mean, imagine the police investigating a murder by subjecting random citizens to harsh interrogations. That would seem foolish, right?

And by the way, how many terrorists has the TSA caught? What? Zero? OK, well done then.

The searches may not be unconstitutional, but they sure are stupid.

Pablo Snooze on December 15, 2010 at 1:45 PM

– so she contacted the lawfirm of Drinker, Biddle and Reath. Her attorney, Alex Brodsky,

Ed ya gotta stop stealin stuff from “The Onion”!

Is thisth the same Firmeth that Maxth Baucuaususus usesss whe nhe geths drink and can’t finds histh drunk?

She called in a Brodsky to protectr her from the the TSA Broad feeler upppers1

Common Ed ya can’t be serious thisth isth justh to much to be believededed! Do all the drunksth use Drinker drunker and skunker or just the Senaster ones from Montananana?

dhunter on December 15, 2010 at 1:51 PM

AZfederalist on December 15, 2010 at 1:13 PM

The reasonableness of the search can only be evaluated when compared to the nature of the threat and the consequences of a successful attack.

Now look, I am not saying that I find the TSA searches to be reasonable. I don’t think they are, not for the reason s you state, but because I don’t think they make us safer. If they did make us safer then I would consider it to at least be close call.

That said I can see how a judge could find it reasonable if he believed the procedure to be effective in saving lives.

MJBrutus on December 15, 2010 at 1:55 PM

Turban and burkah sales explode. Beards return to fashion. Who ya’ gonna frisk?

Caststeel on December 15, 2010 at 2:52 PM

The TSA: Rent-A-Cops Gone Wild

Cicero43 on December 15, 2010 at 3:01 PM

Ah, the boobs exception to the 4th Amendment!

So we can expect every politician in the country to go through these pat downs every time they fly–right?

chickasaw42 on December 15, 2010 at 3:06 PM

Turban and burkah sales explode. Beards return to fashion. Who ya’ gonna frisk?

Caststeel on December 15, 2010 at 2:52 PM

Caststeel,

You will frisk the white haird old lady, hobbling around while leaning on her walker.

You will frisk the three year old girl.

You will frisk the five year old boy with autism, and you will strip him naked while doing so. Those five year old autistic children are veeeerrrry dangerous.

You will frisk the pretty, young, curvaceous, adult female, not because she set off the alarm while passing through the metal detecter, and not because she fits any profile, and not because she is wearing bulky or baggy clothing, for she is wearing comfortable clothing, but not bulkly, baggy clothing. You will frisk her merely because she has a beautiful, curvy, soft looking body, and attractive breasts which are clearly defined and shapely, you want to feel her body, and because you can frisk her, because you are TSA.

You will frisk the black US serviceman in uniform with his orders to go to Afghanistan, or Iraq, or some other base somewhere in the world, even though he is carrying his orders with him, and, again, even though he is wearing his uniform, and travelling with his fellow soldiers-team members.

You will frisk the woman you see breastfeeding her baby, and you will frisk the baby. We all know that breastfeeding is a terrible thing, something that a woman who does so must automatically be considered a terrorist, and we all know that babies are sneaky, dangerous little demons, which is why it is legal to butcher them at the abortuary, putting their mother through medical rape.

You will frisk the woman who has been raped, molested, and assaulted in her life, as well as the woman who has undergone a mascectomy.

You will frisk the man or woman who has a colostomy bag, and other medically required equipment.

You will frisk the man or woman in the wheel chair.

Oh, and regarding the breastfeeding woman, you will separate her form her baby and put her in the “time out” plexiglass room between the lines of scanned passengers, make her stand there for two hours, alone, crying, upset, because she has breastmilk and she won’t permit TSA to radiate the milk intended for her child when she has to go out to work or a meeting.

You will frisk the person coming from the Tea Party gathering, and the teenaged girls travelling to visit grandpa and grandma, as well as that girl’s younger brothers and sisters, for as we all know, children who come from loving, intact families, intact loving families themselves, are dangerous and a threat to society.

You will frisk the nun, the priest, the pastor, the Krishna folower, the Sikh, the Israeli, the Jew, and so on, for people of faith are dangerous, execpt those people of the “Religion of Peace, Love, Tolerance, Compassion, Mercy, and Understanding.”

You will fristk all those people and more, but you will be very careful when dealing with Muslims, for you don’t want to offend them, or make them feel like they are being singled out.

William2006 on December 15, 2010 at 3:10 PM

William2006

+1000

Vera on December 15, 2010 at 3:47 PM

What really bugs me is they dare to call these McDonald’s rejects “officers.”

As if they were the police!

Alana on December 15, 2010 at 3:59 PM

Ka-BOOB!

(They’re very dangerous, you know)

BobMbx on December 15, 2010 at 4:58 PM

Sweeeet

bofh on December 15, 2010 at 5:20 PM

If I had been the inspector, the response to her kid would have been “you aren’t wearing a fake boob which showed up on our sensors and which could be used to hide a bomb”. I’m guessing that the chance of a female terrorist concealing something by using a mastectomy as a justification just went way down as a result of this story.

unclesmrgol on December 15, 2010 at 5:51 PM

I’d like to know when a media outlet will do an investigation of the people who work with the TSA. If illegal aliens have been working for the airlines, surely people with criminal pasts are working with the TSA.

madmonkphotog on December 15, 2010 at 6:29 PM

The entire TSA is just a remake of the old German SS. It is designed to strike fear into everyone, and expedite the Facist takeover of the USA.

The only terrorists here are the ones in the White House.

landlines on December 15, 2010 at 8:25 PM

My wife is very attractive, and surprisingly, she was the one singled out to get the body scan. hmmmm….

tlynch001 on December 15, 2010 at 11:03 PM

Abolish this silly TSA. Or else America itself is a joke.

AshleyTKing on December 15, 2010 at 11:57 PM

Has anyone tracked the locations of these incidents to see if there’s a geographic pattern?

INC on December 15, 2010 at 11:41 AM

Yes. They seem to be focused around the Grand Tetons.

*ducks*

nukemhill on December 17, 2010 at 10:15 AM

I’m not sure I want to be safe from boobs.

wepeople on December 17, 2010 at 3:03 PM

Seriously–everyone who has traveled by air in the last few years has seen a bunch of TSA workers–from your observations, do you really think any of those people, through a physical pat-down, unaided by “idiot-proof” technology, could distinguish high end plastic explosives from any number of innocuous plastic substances used in prostheses, clothing, or other accessories? This is fundamentally a rhetorical question–noone needs to be deafened by the roaring, overpowering, resounding, “No!” you are all thinking.

The only boobs we need protection from are those under the command of the biggest boob of all, Nappy Janny.

Ay Uaxe on December 17, 2010 at 3:28 PM