TSA threatens airport lockdown, gives 4-year-old terrorist accused of concealing hand-gun patdown, refuses to apologize

[YukonTrooper]

Link

A 4-year-old girl was left weeping and terrified after the TSA surrounded her and patted her down after she received a hug from her grandmother. The TSA (Transportation Security Authority) refuses to apologize for its actions, saying that officers "followed proper current screening procedures."

Michelle Brademeyer was left in shock as her daughter, Isabella, who is four, was subjected to a pat-down by TSA agents. Isabella had passed through security but went back to hug her grandmother. That's when the trouble began, Brademeyer wrote on Facebook.

"First, a TSO began yelling at my child and demanded she too must sit down and await a full body pat-down. I was prevented from coming any closer, explaining the situation to her, or consoling her in any way. The TSO refused to let my daughter pass through the scanners once more, to see if she too would set off the alarm," Brademeyer wrote.

"It was implied, several times, that my mother had passed a handgun to my daughter. My child, who was obviously terrified, had no idea what was going on, and the TSOs involved made no attempt to explain it to her. They told her she had to come to them alone, and spread her arms and legs. She screamed, 'No! I don't want to!' then did what any frightened young child might, she ran the opposite direction," the Facebook page read.

Michelle, having had enough, picked up her daughter and tried to explain everything to her. TSO officials threatened to "shut down the entire airport [and] cancel all flights" if Isabella was not restrained.

"I was forced to set my child down … my child was shaking and crying uncontrollably, she did not want to stand still and let strangers touch her. The TSO loomed over my daughter, with an angry grimace on her face, and ordered her to stop crying. When my scared child could not do so, two TSOs called for backup, saying 'The suspect is not cooperating,'" the mother wrote.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Michelle reports that Isabella still suffers from nightmares and is considerably shaken up.

"All of this could have easily been prevented if the TSO involved had used a little bit of compassion. I feel compelled to share this story in the hope that no other child will have to share in this experience," she said.

The TSA has come under great scrutiny for how it conducts pat-downs. Last month people were horrified to watch a 3-year-old in a wheelchair be separated from his parents and go through a pat-down. The video, shot by his father, went viral and received thousands of hits and comments from viewers angry about the situation.

When asked for comment about Isabella's ordeal, the TSA showed no regret.

"TSA has reviewed the incident and determined that our officers followed proper current screening procedures in conducting a modified pat-down on the child," they told The Consumerist.

Yet that seems to stand in opposition to the TSA policies travelers can read about.

"TSA will not ask travelers to do anything that will separate them from their child or children," reads one manual. "TSA specially trains TSOs and they understand travelers' concern for their children. TSOs will approach children gently and treat them with respect."

"If a child becomes uncomfortable or upset, security officers will consult parents about the best way to relieve the child's concern," it also reads.

Does anyone really believe that the airplanes were made safer by molesting and traumatizing this child? The only ones who do are fools and cowards. How many times do these things have to happen before Congress demands replacement of this agency?

There were a total of 84 TSA workers arrested in the last 16 months including 12 arrested for child sex crimes, over 25 for theft and even one for murder. Crime, abuse and incompetence is so widespread in TSA that even Kip Hawley, the last TSA Director, has called for its overhaul.

This just demonstrates how stupid and sick the whole TSA approach is and why it needs to be overhauled. TSA has done more damage to Americans' liberty, way of life and morality than al-Qaeda could have ever hoped to do.

[xcorps]

Welcome to the United States.

Pozhaluĭsta, soobshchite v Shtazi , i predstavitʹ dokumenty ili vy budete rasstrelyany.

[Armenum]

If TSA was rational to any degree, they would create a statistical software that analyses each person's history (number of convictions, age, gender, weapon possession, etc) and according to a calculated probability make the proper screening. So for example, old grandmothers would have a very low probability and be given very lenient screening. Of course, I'm sure you'd have your usual people claiming racism, the software could (and should) leave out ethnicity/religion. Just an idea.

[xcorps]

If TSA was rational to any degree, they would create a statistical software that analyses each person's history (number of convictions, age, gender, weapon possession, etc) and according to a calculated probability make the proper screening. So for example, old grandmothers would have a very low probability and be given very lenient screening. Of course, I'm sure you'd have your usual people claiming racism, the software could (and should) leave out ethnicity/religion. Just an idea.

Why should it leave out ethnicity and religion? Are they or are they not identifiers of a person?

Profiling is profiling. Either be smart and use it or be stupid and terrify 4 year olds.

[Armenum]

Why should it leave out ethnicity and religion? Are they or are they not identifiers of a person?

Profiling is profiling. Either be smart and use it or be stupid and terrify 4 year olds.

Using religion for example as a computation (e.g. being Muslim increases the probability estimate) just wouldn't be acceptable and human rights groups would be relentless in pointing this out. However, maybe there's less obviously biased way to do it. For example, take all people that have committed terrorist attacks, put them in the database, quantify their demographics (which would include religion/ethnicity) and some sort of comparison mechanism of the aggregate number with all other people going through screening. Now you have religion/ethnicity counted, but the bias less obvious, and probably would be accepted in this form. So if your demographic info is within a certain threshold of that aggregate number of all the terrorists, then you deserve more screening.

[motiv-8]

Why should it leave out ethnicity and religion? Are they or are they not identifiers of a person?

Are ethnicity and/or religion a default statistical qualifier for being a terrorist? It's a tempting argument, but the reality of the situation is that the empirical evidence says no. Ethnicity only matters in terrorism when it involves a local campaign that is typically nationalist or regionalist in origin, and almost always is the subsequent violence contained within that country or region. Which is why, for example, we didn't worry much about Irish terrorism in the United States during the Troubles and Canadians didn't worry much about Tamil terrorism during the worst of the Tamil insurgency. On the other hand, for those groups that are international, like al-Qaeda or earlier Marxist groups, there is no singular ethnicity to focus on so then people fall back to the next most convenient identifier, ideology/religion. Sounds good, right? Well, the problem is that Gallup in a study almost four years old discovered that there's no distinguishable difference between the self-defined religiosity of a Islamic radical like one who might be recruited into al-Qaeda, and the general Muslim population. What separates the two is politics.

But unfortunately politics is not something that can be profiled at an airport, and so instead our dear bureaucratic minions rely on ineffective, inefficient means of profiling that do less for improving security than they do for aggravating faultlines in our society. Whereas far better results have been achieved by intelligence agencies identifying radicals and stopping them before they ever get anywhere near an airport.

Profiling is profiling. Either be smart and use it or be stupid and terrify 4 year olds.

I agree, but the problem is that reasonable conclusions suggest it's no more smarter to profile and terrify/humiliate/annoy a 23-year-old Sudanese student than it is to terrify a little 4-year-old girl.

All in all, we fight an enemy on several continents that craves a culture war, a clash of civilizations, that feeds on fault-lines and derives its power from actions and reactions based on these self-promoted concepts. I don't relish the thought of obliging them, I tend to think we could possibly be above that way of thinking.

[Adar]

Are ethnicity and/or religion a default statistical qualifier for being a terrorist? It's a tempting argument, but the reality of the situation is that the empirical evidence says no. Ethnicity only matters in terrorism when it involves a local campaign that is typically nationalist or regionalist in origin, and almost always is the subsequent violence contained within that country or region. Which is why, for example, we didn't worry much about Irish terrorism in the United States during the Troubles and Canadians didn't worry much about Tamil terrorism during the worst of the Tamil insurgency. On the other hand, for those groups that are international, like al-Qaeda or earlier Marxist groups, there is no singular ethnicity to focus on so then people fall back to the next most convenient identifier, ideology/religion. Sounds good, right? Well, the problem is that Gallup in a study almost four years old discovered that there's no distinguishable difference between the self-defined religiosity of a Islamic radical like one who might be recruited into al-Qaeda, and the general Muslim population. What separates the two is politics.

To separate the general muslim population from extremist you would just need to start including other data. Young muslims traveling to Pakistan/Yemen without any personal connections to the area is most likely not doing it because they would enjoy the scenery. Of course you always have some oddballs who do just that, so the airport security would need to be nice even to the ones who rings every alarm bell in the system.

White males are known for oppressing/imprisoning/killing/terrorizing more people than anyone else in the history of earth, lets profile them!

This is actually one of my major annoyances. I am a young male who often travel without a checked in baggage even in the winter and got a background in defense against CBRN threats.

I wouldn't allow me to ride on any airplane without checking even the 100 ml bottles and someone asking me if my marriage was doing fine, when I planned to make my return trip and if I was upset about anything.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I am also white but the accusations you make have as far as I know never been about doing those things on an airplane.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

I agree, but the problem is that reasonable conclusions suggest it's no more smarter to profile and terrify/humiliate/annoy a 23-year-old Sudanese student than it is to terrify a little 4-year-old girl.

But it is far smarter to believe a 23 year old Sudanese student is more likely than a 4 year old girl to be a terrorist. I don't see the issue here?

[motiv-8]

But it is far smarter to believe a 23 year old Sudanese student is more likely than a 4 year old girl to be a terrorist. I don't see the issue here?

Except it's not, and all empirical evidence says it's not. The issue is that you are relying on "conventional wisdom" which is not fact- or statistics- based. It's as if you read the last sentence of my post after skipping over literally everything else.

[mrmouth]

Does anyone really believe that the airplanes were made safer by molesting and traumatizing this child?

How can anyone answer that question? Maybe somewhere there is a place where they train children suicide bombers. Imagine that...

And really, I'm going to believe a parents account of what horrible thing happened to their child when I can whistle a toon out my arse. I really don't care how much it inconveniences people or how much it makes your ipod toting brat of a kid cry. Its a metal tube at 30,000ft. I'm all about landing safely.

Certainly not a perfect system, but what is? Well, the El AL system of unapologetic profiling seems to be about as close to perfect and unintrusive as can be. I'm all for that. But until then, everyone gets the scrotum handshake, and kids will cry. God forbid.

[Captain Arrrgh!]

She doesn't look like an ipod toting brat of a kid at all. She looks like a regular, north american child.

An English speaking, blonde haired little girl is not the same as an Afghani boy several thousand miles away, or is this somehow racist, rather than being obvious.

And, as pointed out in the OP, the actions of these *ahem* security personel, was entirely contrary to the distributed literature.

Not to this member's memory has there ever been an incident of a blonde little girl yelling ALALALALALA! and then triggering a bomb in an airport.

[xcorps]

Thats just nonsense, sorry. You see, more than half of domestic terrorist preventions and incidents(as defined by the FBI) have been attempts by far right wing groups. According to the FBI, the majority of terrorist incidents and preventions involving jihadists occur in Muslim countries. So identifying someone as an Arab Muslim would be more likely to move them down the list of persons likely to commit a terrorist act in the United States.

The perception that we need to be sensitive to the "feelings" of a specific ethnicity or religious groups is an absolute crock of crap. If we examine ALL ethnic and religious groups with the exact same scrutiny, then there is no issue except what crybaby attention grabbers want to make news about. And the only reasonable response to them is a one finger salute.

[Armenum]

Thats just nonsense, sorry. You see, more than half of domestic terrorist preventions and incidents(as defined by the FBI) have been attempts by far right wing groups. According to the FBI, the majority of terrorist incidents and preventions involving jihadists occur in Muslim countries. So identifying someone as an Arab Muslim would be more likely to move them down the list of persons likely to commit a terrorist act in the United States.

The perception that we need to be sensitive to the "feelings" of a specific ethnicity or religious groups is an absolute crock of crap. If we examine ALL ethnic and religious groups with the exact same scrutiny, then there is no issue except what crybaby attention grabbers want to make news about. And the only reasonable response to them is a one finger salute.

Statistically including race/religion would make the calculations more powerful. I'm just saying that in the politically sensitive atmosphere of today, it would be difficult to have such a system. When it comes to airport security, you have look at it in an international scope also. Most airports are international and handle passengers from all over the world, hence looking at just domestic terrorism statistics won't be enough.

[xcorps]

Statistically including race/religion would make the calculations more powerful. I'm just saying that in the politically sensitive atmosphere of today, it would be difficult to have such a system. When it comes to airport security, you have look at it in an international scope also. Most airports are international and handle passengers from all over the world, hence looking at just domestic terrorism statistics won't be enough.

That wasnt actually my point. My point was that it doesn't really matter if people whine and about profiling. Profiling works by exclusion, not inclusion.

The "fondle him!" category includes everyone at start.
Then you remove all the 2 year olds with down's syndrome.
Then you remove all the Hari-Krishna females from Swaziland.
Then you remove all the "World Poker Series Players".

You see what I mean? This nonsense about paying more attention to a 23 year old Muslim from deepest darkest Khartoum is exactly that. Nonsense. The perception needs to be corrected so a 73 year old great grandmother with a walker doesn't have to take her shoes off and the paranoid don't have to be afraid that their puddle jumper is going to turn into a manned cruise missile.

[Armenum]

That wasnt actually my point. My point was that it doesn't really matter if people whine and about profiling. Profiling works by exclusion, not inclusion.

The "fondle him!" category includes everyone at start.
Then you remove all the 2 year olds with down's syndrome.
Then you remove all the Hari-Krishna females from Swaziland.
Then you remove all the "World Poker Series Players".

You see what I mean? This nonsense about paying more attention to a 23 year old Muslim from deepest darkest Khartoum is exactly that. Nonsense. The perception needs to be corrected so a 73 year old great grandmother with a walker doesn't have to take her shoes off and the paranoid don't have to be afraid that their puddle jumper is going to turn into a manned cruise missile.

I see what you mean, and you make a good point. Excluding the low risk factors such as the 2 year old kids and grandmothers and so on can be a much more efficient approach and avoid any "profiling" criticisms. Though you still could use such a statistical software to complete this.

[Dr. Oza]

Profiling is profiling. Either be smart and use it or be stupid and terrify 4 year olds.

White males are known for oppressing/imprisoning/killing/terrorizing more people than anyone else in the history of earth, lets profile them!

[Captain Arrrgh!]

White males are known for oppressing/imprisoning/killing/terrorizing more people than anyone else in the history of earth, lets profile them!

Excuse me, how can you not be choking on your own rubbish after posting this?

[athanaric]

White males are known for oppressing/imprisoning/killing/terrorizing more people than anyone else in the history of earth, lets profile them!

Source?

[xcorps]

@Motiv
It is indeed problematic, and everything you say is spot on. That's why we can't rely on a single method of security to provide protocol for safe flight. I'm not suggesting that profiling is the solution, I'm suggesting that it is part of the solution. Random screenings of variable intensity and durations, pre-certification identification, dedicated task specific focus specific threat analysis, and an adjustable definition for terrorism based on threat analysis, and an impartial nonpoliticized security agency are all part of the answer as well.

Group hugs from minimum wage drones in a uniform isn't a solution, it's a problem.

White males are known for oppressing/imprisoning/killing/terrorizing more people than anyone else in the history of earth, lets profile them!

Yes indeed we should profile the hell out them. And when we find someone who's part of PETA, attended anti abortion rallies, has ties with the Aryan Brotherhood, or was convicted of sending smallpox scabs to the Surgeon General we should cart them off to a nice private room and body scan them until their bone marrow melts.

[Lord Rahl]

This sounds ridiculous. "The suspect is not cooperating." Really? I've been through many airports many times and I've never experienced anything like this. TSA agents yelling at a 4 year old child? Suspicion of a grandmother giving her granddaughter a handgun? This honestly sounds too outrageous to be true.

I hate going through security as much as the next person, except for those who seem to not understand how to pack so getting through is quick and painless, but this sort of incident literally seems unbelievable.