# TSA pats down 4-year-old after she hugs grandmother



## amtrakwolverine (Apr 24, 2012)

> A 4-year-old girl was patted down recently by Transportation Security Officers (TSO) at a Wichita, Kan., airport after she embraced her grandmother at the security checkpoint.


http://overheadbin.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/24/11371144-tsa-pats-down-4-year-old-after-she-hugs-grandmother?lite


----------



## caravanman (Apr 26, 2012)

This seems to be the mother (who posted on facebook) not understanding the need for vigilance after the granny triggered the alarm in the first place. I understand that the individual child might be upset, and the officers may have been less than sensitive to the child, but the whole point of going through security is that you are screened... contact with an unscreened person, even a granny, means you are no longer considered safe, and will need to be screened again... a no brainer it seems to me!

Ed


----------



## RRrich (Apr 26, 2012)

caravanman said:


> a no brainer it seems to me!
> 
> Ed


Unfortunately "a no brainer" may be the proper description of so many things we run into these days


----------



## Ryan (Apr 26, 2012)

caravanman said:


> the whole point of going through security is that you are screened... contact with an unscreened person, even a granny, means you are no longer considered safe, and will need to be screened again... a no brainer it seems to me!


Exactly.

Don't get me wrong, I have no love for the TSA, but I don't get the complaining about the screening of old people and kids. Do people really think that those that would do us harm are dumb and wouldn't take note if we just allowed children to sail through security checkpoints? Instead of an "underwear bomb", you'll just see a "diaper bomb" or a "colostomy bag bomb".


----------



## Bob Dylan (Apr 26, 2012)

All one has to do is look @ the MO of Terrorist Suicide Bombers! The Crazies are using Women, Children and Old People as Pawns in their Twisted Schemes! I'm no fan of the TSA Security Theater @ Airports, but as our Founding Fathers said: "Eternal Vigilance is the Price of Liberty!" Im still glad that Amtrak hasnt given in to the Nervous Nelly Facist thinking that seems to have become SOP in our Political and Security Circles!

Amtrak seems to do it right, theyve caught many more potential criminals and crazies than the TSA and HLS!!!


----------



## john6185 (Apr 29, 2012)

I'm for Ryan, there are no 93 year old grandmothers or toddlers with MLS carrying a bomb nor will you find loving grandfathers with their grandchildren. The fact that they don't profile upsets me in that Israel has one of the best -if not the best "TSA" programs in the world and yet the United States cannot bring itself to adopt or pattern our TSA after Israel. The TSA and their militant disrespectful and attitudes are the main reason I don't fly anymore. incidentally, I am retired military, have a secret clearance and have a total of nearly 40 years federal service and am a senior citizen (yuk) and I take it as somewhat as a personal insult when singled out to take off my shoes etc. I am an american, patriotic and all I want to do is get from point A to point B. I realize we have to have security with the world situation but for crying out loud, they search the least likely and allow those who more likely to pat down themselves. It doesn't make sense, all of us should be treated equally and simple profiling would seem to work-it works for Israel-they haven't had a skyjacking for quite some time.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Apr 29, 2012)

amtraks got it right they got a gold medal from the TSA for security. maybe the TSA should take a lesson from amtrak.


----------



## Trogdor (Apr 29, 2012)

john6185 said:


> I take it as somewhat as a personal insult when singled out to take off my shoes etc.


If, by "singled out," you mean everybody has to do it, then yes. Ironically, that's the exact opposite of what "singled out" means, but...whatever.



> they search the least likely and allow those who more likely to pat down themselves.


1) Define "more likely"

2) Provide proof that those "more likely" are allowed to "pat down themselves" as you say.



> It doesn't make sense, *all of us should be treated equally* and *simple profiling would seem to work*


Your statement is what doesn't make sense. The first bolded part contradicts the second bolded part.

Edit - Additional comment:

Approximately two million people travel by air to, from and within the United States each day. Some of them (I don't have the number) get subjected to advanced screening and pat downs either due to choice (opting out of the cancer/nude scanners), or due to some other condition that may require such. It is not unreasonable to suggest that this number extends well into the thousands (tens of thousands?) per day. Of that, every few weeks we get some article about TSA patting down a kid or a grandmother, and it becomes some media frenzy. It's very conceivable that out of the (tens of?) thousands of people that get pat downs and advanced screening per day, that one or more of them may feel that the TSA agent acted inappropriately. Of that number, some percentage of those claims (greater than 0 and less than 100) might be valid. Either way, it makes a good news story. What I don't get is how people can convince themselves that just because the 00.0001% of screenings that result in a news article tend to be of people of a certain age/racial/medical demographic, that everybody subjected to those screenings is of the same demographic.

As if, honestly, a 35-year-old man of Middle Eastern descent getting a pat down by TSA would even warrant a one-sentence report on a napkin, let alone a newspaper. There's no actual evidence that these screenings and pat downs are anything but random (which is the way it should be). However, if you actually let media reports be your only source of information (factual or not), then it would certainly appear that they only give pat downs to little old white ladies and their four-year-old granddaughters. But, if you actually believe that, then you seriously need to take a step back and reconsider what you use as your source of information on what's going on in the world.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 30, 2012)

john6185 said:


> there are no 93 year old grandmothers or toddlers with MLS carrying a bomb nor will you find loving grandfathers with their grandchildren.


Because they're subject to the same security as the people that you want to profile.

The minute that goes away, you can bet that you'll see one.



john6185 said:


> incidentally, I am retired military, have a secret clearance and have a total of nearly 40 years federal service and am a senior citizen (yuk) and I take it as somewhat as a personal insult when singled out to take off my shoes etc.


Major Nadal Hasan would like to have a word with you. He had a clearance as well. Also, you're probably aware that broadcasting the fact that you have a security clearance on the Internet is advised against by all of the security professionals that I've ever worked with.


----------



## john6185 (Apr 30, 2012)

Ok, I'm wrong, you're right. I give up there is no need to argue.


----------



## George Harris (May 1, 2012)

Ryan said:


> john6185 said:
> 
> 
> > I am retired military, have a secret clearance and have a total of nearly 40 years federal service and am a senior citizen (yuk) and I take it as somewhat as a personal insult when singled out to take off my shoes etc.
> ...


Ryan: That the last statement is true is an outstanding example of what is wrong with the current system. The clowns in charge are so determined to avoid any appearance of being discriminatory that they gave a clearance to someone that all but carried a flashing "I am a potential traitor" sign around. And to have this clown dealing with psychological issues of soldiers out of combat zones should have resulted in a thorough housecleaning all the way up the chain of command above him.

Hence the TSA concept of let's give a thorough going over of the least likely candidates to cause trouble.

By the way, your snide comment concerning John's statement that he had a security clearance was simply a cheap shot. Hint: In order to hold a commission in the Army you have to have at least a "secret" security clearance. Hello, Maj Hasan, how did you get yours? So, if you say that you are or have been a military officer anyone that would have any interest in the subject knows that you have or at in the past had a security clearance.


----------



## Anderson (May 1, 2012)

George Harris said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > john6185 said:
> ...


Yeah, I have a bit of a bone to pick here as well. The issue with Hassan is, IMHO, that there were behavioral warning signs and nobody thought to _pull_ his clearance if they became evident after the fact. Clearances do have to be renewed and they can be revoked...and IIRC, it's not like his affiliations were super-subtle.


----------



## Ryan (May 1, 2012)

George Harris said:


> Ryan: That the last statement is true is an outstanding example of what is wrong with the current system. The clowns in charge are so determined to avoid any appearance of being discriminatory that they gave a clearance to someone that all but carried a flashing "I am a potential traitor" sign around.


Wow, you must be pretty smart to know the motivations of people you never met! Or you're just making things up to match your political agenda. Again.



> By the way, your snide comment concerning John's statement that he had a security clearance was simply a cheap shot.


Actually, no. It was the result of getting security training last week that spent an hour specifically talking about social media and online behavior, containing the specific discussion to not talk about your clearance in a format such as this. But congrats for making incorrect assumptions about what''s going on in my head. (also again)



> Hint: In order to hold a commission in the Army you have to have at least a "secret" security clearance. Hello, Maj Hasan, how did you get yours? So, if you say that you are or have been a military officer anyone that would have any interest in the subject knows that you have or at in the past had a security clearance.


Hint: John never said he was in the Army, or an officer. There are many, many people in the military (which is the only info John gave) that don't have a clearance.


----------



## benjibear (May 1, 2012)

Why did they pat her down instead of just letting here go through the screening again?


----------



## Anderson (May 1, 2012)

Ryan said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan: That the last statement is true is an outstanding example of what is wrong with the current system. The clowns in charge are so determined to avoid any appearance of being discriminatory that they gave a clearance to someone that all but carried a flashing "I am a potential traitor" sign around.
> ...


This last bit is actually a good point, and the military isn't the only place you end up with clearances: An example would be my mother, who was never in the military...but who wound up with a clearance because of a position in the administration of a machine shop that meant she might had to manage the clearances for guys who _might_ have to look over some aspect of a government project. I do not know what level she had, but she's a good example of someone working at a desk job in the manufacturing sector who wound up with a clearance of some level or another.


----------

