85-year-old says she was strip searched at JFK

[Don]

To be honest, there is no evidence but if it DID happen, the way the women explained it, it was not offensive but necessary. I don't see the big deal - but I also see no evidence.

Seriously? Stripping down, to whatever extent, an 85-year old woman was necessary? Can you please explain why?

 

[annsni]

Seriously? Stripping down, to whatever extent, an 85-year old woman was necessary? Can you please explain why?

Because an old woman with an ostomy bag could absolutely NOT be carrying feces but instead a bomb. In this day and age where they would smuggle a bomb in a baby's diaper or in a "pregnant" woman's belly, then a "medical device on an old woman" could absolutely be an issue.

 

[freeatlast]

Because an old woman with an ostomy bag could absolutely NOT be carrying feces but instead a bomb. In this day and age where they would smuggle a bomb in a baby's diaper or in a "pregnant" woman's belly, then a "medical device on an old woman" could absolutely be an issue.

This attitude is why this country is headed for the total distruction of our freedoms and rights.

 

[annsni]

This attitude is why this country is headed for the total distruction of our freedoms and rights.

I disagree. I'm just being realistic and would like for there to be somewhat of a safe world for my children.

 

[Robert Snow]

Just let one more jet be blown out of the sky with a bomb smuggled on board and these same ones who gripe about the searches will complain that enough wasn't done, especially if one of their loved ones are on board.

 

[freeatlast]

I disagree. I'm just being realistic and would like for there to be somewhat of a safe world for my children.

You are following the same logic that the German people followed when Hitler promised them what he did. They gave up their rights just like you want us all to do. Once they are gone they are almost impossible to bring back.

 

[freeatlast]

Just let one more jet be blown out of the sky with a bomb smuggled on board and these same ones who gripe about the searches will complain that enough wasn't done, especially if one of their loved ones are on board.

The thing is the searches are not necessary as there are other ways to handle it. Also I would far rather lose a loved one or my own life then to surrender my freedoms and rights. The statement "Give me liberty or give me death" today is lacking in the hearts of many people in this country and we are seeing the results.
When they are gone the same people who worked so hard to destroy them will be the ones who cry the loudest.

 

[mandym]

So let me get this straight. Someone on the board would rather lose their life or life of a loved one that have some woman's colostomy bag checked?

Why am I not surprised.

 

[annsni]

Also I would far rather lose a loved one or my own life then to surrender my freedoms and rights. The statement "Give me liberty or give me death" today is lacking in the hearts of many people in this country and we are seeing the results.
When they are gone the same people who worked so hard to destroy them will be the ones who cry the loudest.

On Sunday, I saw an old friend. She introduced me to her 5 year old son Joseph who was named after his uncle who died in the World Trade Center. I'm sorry but I will allow someone to search me and my loved ones to assure that we are safe. Since it would be my choice to travel by plane, it is my choice to allow the authorities to search me. There are no "taking rights away" from anyone.

 

[freeatlast]

On Sunday, I saw an old friend. She introduced me to her 5 year old son Joseph who was named after his uncle who died in the World Trade Center. I'm sorry but I will allow someone to search me and my loved ones to assure that we are safe. Since it would be my choice to travel by plane, it is my choice to allow the authorities to search me. There are no "taking rights away" from anyone.

OH yes you have as well as the TSA. In the past it was my right to fly without being searched. Now it is not. It is no different then spitting on the graves of every service person who has fought and died in combat for the freedoms and rights of the people of this nation when any person desires to surrender the rights of others for their personal comfort. You have helped the government strip away my right by agreeing to this unconstitutional search, just like the people of Germany did under Hitler when he convinced them to give up their rights..

 

[annsni]

OH yes you have as well as the TSA. In the past it was my right to fly without being searched. Now it is not. It is no different then spitting on the graves of every service person who has fought and died in combat for the freedoms and rights of the people of this nation when any person desires to surrender the rights of others for their personal comfort. You have helped the government strip away my right by agreeing to this unconstitutional search, just like the people of Germany did under Hitler when he convinced them to give up their rights..

Show me the constitutional right to flight and I will agree.

 

[Salty]

Show me the constitutional right to flight and I will agree.

Ann, are you some kind of extreme right wing constitutional freak?
Next thing is you are going to tell me I don't have a right to go thur a red light - that does restrict my travel. And I do have a right to carry a gun on a plane, I also have a right to bring 10 suitcases on the plane if I so desire, I have the right to fly on a plane even if my BAC is *.32 ! and I have the right......... :smilewinkgrin:


and Free - you stated "I would far rather lose a loved one or my own life then to surrender my freedoms and rights."
Its not just a matter of your life, but as Ann stated about the WTC - remeber just one plane killed over 1,000 people.:tear:
Free - one other thing - I'm glad I'm not related to you!raying:



Salty

PS * legal limit to be considered DWI = .08 (BTW - that is a federal blackmail issue)

 

[freeatlast]

Show me the constitutional right to flight and I will agree.

Ann because of your liberal bent and unconstitutional position you would not agree if the supreme court showed you we are not to be subject to un-reasonable searches.
But if you want to do the reasearch yourself read the Fourth Amendment and you can reject that also.

 

[freeatlast]

.:tear:
Free - one other thing - I'm glad I'm not related to you!raying:
)

That is too bad because you will wish you were in eternity.

 

[Robert Snow]

That is too bad because you will wish you were in eternity.

Just when I think you couldn't get any more ridiculous, you go and do it!

You are very good as asking questions and making asinine statements. Why will you not answer them, are you too cowardly?

BTW, you are questioning another member's salvation. You have been reported.

 

[Don]

Because an old woman with an ostomy bag could absolutely NOT be carrying feces but instead a bomb. In this day and age where they would smuggle a bomb in a baby's diaper or in a "pregnant" woman's belly, then a "medical device on an old woman" could absolutely be an issue.

My sympathies to your friend and their loss; but screening procedures were in place prior to 9/11, and yet, they didn't stop the terrorists from accomplishing their goal.

We will have to agree to disagree on this subject. The only question I can ask is: Okay, searching an 85-year old woman to make sure her colostomy bag is actually a colostomy bag makes you feel safer. So what's your "deciding line" to feel safe, rather than just safer?

 

[annsni]

So what's your "deciding line" to feel safe, rather than just safer?

Heaven. Otherwise, all I can do is "safer" here.

 

[Don]

Heaven. Otherwise, all I can do is "safer" here.

Good answer.

So until then, anything/everything goes?

 

[Don]

FAL, you don't have a "right" to fly, just as you don't have a "right" to drive.

 

[freeatlast]

FAL, you don't have a "right" to fly, just as you don't have a "right" to drive.

Show me that in the constitution. :laugh: