PDA

View Full Version : 85-year-old woman may sue TSA after being strip searched at JFK Airport



Rockntractor
12-04-2011, 01:12 PM
'I really look like a terrorist,' 110-pound Long Island grandmother says

BY Nicholas Hirshon
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Friday, December 2 2011, 9:36 PM
An 85-year-old Long Island grandmother says she plans to sue the TSA after a humiliating strip search on Tuesday by agents at JFK Airport.

Lenore Zimmerman, who lives in Long Beach, says she was on her way to a 1 p.m. flight to Fort Lauderdale when security whisked her to a private room and took off her clothes.

“I walk with a walker — I really look like a terrorist,” she said sarcastically. “I’m tiny. I weigh 110 pounds, 107 without clothes, and I was strip-searched.”

TSA spokeswoman Lisa Farbstein said a review of closed circuit TV footage from the airport shows “proper procedures were followed.”

But Zimmerman, whose hunched back puts her at 4-foot-11, said her ordeal began after her son, Bruce, drove her to the JetBlue terminal for the Florida flight. She lives in warm Coconut Creek during the winter.

She checked her bags, waited for a wheelchair and parted ways with her doting son — her only immediate relative.

When Zimmerman reached a security checkpoint, she asked if she could forgo the advanced image technology screening equipment, fearing it might interfere with her defibrillator.

She said she normally gets patted down. But this time, she says that two female agents escorted her to a private room and began to remove her clothes.

“I was outraged,” said Zimmerman, a retired receptionist.

As she tried to lift a lightweight walker off her lap, she says, the metal bars banged against her leg and blood trickled from a gash.

“My sock was soaked with blood,” she said. “I was bleeding like a pig.”

She says the TSA agents showed no sympathy, instead pulling down her pants and asking her to raise her arms.

“Why are you doing this?” she said she asked the agents, who did not respond.

The TSA claims the footage does not show any sign of the injury.

“Our screening procedures are conducted in a manner designed to treat all passengers with dignity, respect and courtesy,” Farbstein said.

Zimmerman says a medic arrived to treat her injury. The process took so long that she missed her 1 p.m. flight and had to catch a later one.

Her son said he was shocked when his mom called around 9 p.m. that night and described what happened.

“She was put through a hell of a day,” he said.

Zimmerman, who takes blood thinners, later had a tetanus shot for fear of infection from the walker wound.

Bruce Zimmerman, 53, said he can’t understand why the agents targeted his mom.

“She looks like a sweet, little old lady,” he said. “She’s not a disruptive person or uncooperative.”

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/lenore-zimmerman-85-hurt-strip-search-tsa-agents-jfk-airport-article-1.986198#ixzz1faRkrNYr



Sick fucks! When will we say we have had enough of this shit? Come on sheep.:rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
12-04-2011, 02:01 PM
Um. it's about National Security, and everyone knows national security interests trump everything else. We can't be soft on national security or else the terrists win

Rockntractor
12-04-2011, 02:34 PM
Um. it's about National Security, and everyone knows national security interests trump everything else. We can't be soft on national security or else the terrists win

I would call you an idiot but that would be like yelling at water because it's wet.

Janice
12-04-2011, 04:04 PM
Um. it's about National Security ...


Yeah, right. Well I'm sure that if she had been wearing a hijab and/or any other muslim apparel she would have gotten a pass. Porno grope the innocent while ignoring the obvious. We know how this works now.

Novaheart
12-04-2011, 05:32 PM
Yeah, right. Well I'm sure that if she had been wearing a hijab and/or any other muslim apparel she would have gotten a pass. Porno grope the innocent while ignoring the obvious. We know how this works now.

That's speculation on your part.

The "searching nuns and grandma's thing" as a TSA director said some time ago, is logical and reasonable (I may not fully agree as a function of probability). If you don't search old ladies and children, then the terrorists will use old ladies and children.

We are told that Mrs. Zimmerman has a doting son. Is he as misguided as Bradley Manning? Does she have a neighbor like Sami Al Arian who might have access to her walker? Does she have a healthcare aid that she thinks is Haitian, but is actually from Somalia?

I think the process is disrespectful and unconstitutional, but our government and courts disagree. Given that, Mrs. Zimmerman is as much a suspect as I am.

Now what is totally outrageous, is that you don't really have a right to refuse as I understand it. A citizen should have the right to refuse the search, even if it means being escorted from the airport and denied access to his plane. Just as you should have the right to turn to avoid a "safety checkpoint" on a local street without having a police officer follow you maintaining that avoiding the checkpoint is in and of itself probable cause.

SarasotaRepub
12-04-2011, 07:09 PM
What's lacking in this instance and others is common sense.

Janice
12-04-2011, 08:28 PM
What's lacking in this instance and others is common sense.

Xactly. :cool:

Odysseus
12-04-2011, 10:11 PM
Um. it's about National Security, and everyone knows national security interests trump everything else. We can't be soft on national security or else the terrists win
If we were really serious about national security, you won't be allowed near a classroom. Rendering a generation of kids incapable of understanding why their country warrants defending does more damage than a dozen suicide bombers.

What's lacking in this instance and others is common sense.

A few weeks after we got to DC, Mrs. O and I took the kids to an aquarium in a federal building. We had to go through metal detectors and assorted TSA-style security, including an ID check, and then, at the bottom of the stairs, ran into another customer who was dressed in a full Saudi-style hijab. The only thing showing was her eyes. Apparently, after a decade of terror attacks by Muslims, in the name of Islam, we've decided that a United States Army Lieutenant Colonel, his two daughters (seven and three years old) and spouse are potentially a threat to national security, but a Muslim woman wearing a full face mask isn't. Common sense...

Wei Wu Wei
12-04-2011, 10:52 PM
Terrorists will use anyone, including unsuspecting or gullible people to carry out their dirty work. Not only that, it's foolish to only look for people of middle eastern descent or those with Muslim-style clothing.

Not to mention, before 9/11, the most deadly terrorist attack in US history was carried out by an an anti-federal government white male. The failed underwear bomber was black.

The way the government sees it, it's just best to check everybody, even if it's a violation of privacy, because it's in the interests of national security.

"National Security" is the trump card that is used to justify any action whatsoever, if national security is justification for overthrowing democratically elected governments, starting wars, torturing people, spying on citizens or more, it seems that invasive pat-downs at the airport fall well within that scope.

NJCardFan
12-05-2011, 12:26 AM
Terrorists will use anyone, including unsuspecting or gullible people to carry out their dirty work. Not only that, it's foolish to only look for people of middle eastern descent or those with Muslim-style clothing.

Not to mention, before 9/11, the most deadly terrorist attack in US history was carried out by an an anti-federal government white male. The failed underwear bomber was black.

The way the government sees it, it's just best to check everybody, even if it's a violation of privacy, because it's in the interests of national security.

"National Security" is the trump card that is used to justify any action whatsoever, if national security is justification for overthrowing democratically elected governments, starting wars, torturing people, spying on citizens or more, it seems that invasive pat-downs at the airport fall well within that scope.
The failed underwear bomber was a black Muslim. Get it right. His flight also originated in Europe. Same with the shoe bomber. The 9/11 hijackers were able to hijack those planes because they were carrying things that at the time were considered legal to carry on a plane at the time. It had nothing to do with airport security. Now for the rest of your screed:

Name me a democratically elected government we overthrew. I'll wait.

Wei Wu Wei
12-05-2011, 01:56 AM
The failed underwear bomber was a black Muslim. Get it right. His flight also originated in Europe. Same with the shoe bomber. The 9/11 hijackers were able to hijack those planes because they were carrying things that at the time were considered legal to carry on a plane at the time. It had nothing to do with airport security.

National security, end of story.


Now for the rest of your screed:

Name me a democratically elected government we overthrew. I'll wait.

The US was involved in the Iranian coup:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

The CIA was deeply involved in the guatemalan coup:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

The US + CIA supported the overthrow of the Brazilian government:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Brazilian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#American_Involve ment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Brazil

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
The CIA was involved in propaganda and spreading dissent, offering actual and symbolic support to the fascist Pinochet who took power after the democratically elected government was overthrown.

The US was involved in a propaganda campaign surrounding the Argentinian coup:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Argentine_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat



These are just democratically-elected governments. There are plenty of sovereign states that the US has been directly or indirectly involved with military regime changes that may not be considered "democratic".


In every single case, the justification for US actions is "national security". It's a trump card.

NJCardFan
12-05-2011, 03:29 AM
National security, end of story.



The US was involved in the Iranian coup:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

The CIA was deeply involved in the guatemalan coup:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

The US + CIA supported the overthrow of the Brazilian government:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Brazilian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#American_Involve ment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Brazil

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
The CIA was involved in propaganda and spreading dissent, offering actual and symbolic support to the fascist Pinochet who took power after the democratically elected government was overthrown.

The US was involved in a propaganda campaign surrounding the Argentinian coup:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Argentine_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat



These are just democratically-elected governments. There are plenty of sovereign states that the US has been directly or indirectly involved with military regime changes that may not be considered "democratic".


In every single case, the justification for US actions is "national security". It's a trump card.
Wikipedia? Really? A real reliable news source you got there. :rolleyes:

djones520
12-05-2011, 03:36 AM
The failed underwear bomber was a black Muslim. Get it right. His flight also originated in Europe. Same with the shoe bomber. The 9/11 hijackers were able to hijack those planes because they were carrying things that at the time were considered legal to carry on a plane at the time. It had nothing to do with airport security. Now for the rest of your screed:

Name me a democratically elected government we overthrew. I'll wait.

Germany?

Odysseus
12-05-2011, 11:09 AM
National security, end of story.
If you are still walking around, then we aren't taking it too seriously.


The US was involved in the Iranian coup:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
If, by that, you mean that we sided with the legal monarch against his prime minister, who was attempting a coup of his own, (and who had taken his position after the assassination of the previous prime minister, who was an ally of the Shah) by providing him with assurances of his personal protection, then you're right, we were "involved". But we didn't overthrow him. The Iranians did that all by themselves.


The CIA was deeply involved in the guatemalan coup:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
Yes, but if Arbenz had not alienated the productive classes of Guatemala, there would have been no coup. In other words, we assisted, but did not overthrow.


The US + CIA supported the overthrow of the Brazilian government:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Brazilian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#American_Involve ment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Brazil
US activities were limited to propaganda in support of the rebellion.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
The CIA was involved in propaganda and spreading dissent, offering actual and symbolic support to the fascist Pinochet who took power after the democratically elected government was overthrown.
This is utter BS. Allende won office with a plurality of the vote and then proceeded to govern as if he had a mandate to enslave the nation. His policies of property confiscation and gathering arms to militarize his political supporters enfuriated the majority of Chileans, who spent months rioting and striking before the coup.


The US was involved in a propaganda campaign surrounding the Argentinian coup:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Argentine_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
After the coup, you mean. When we expressed support for the junta that threw out Evita Peron.

These are just democratically-elected governments. There are plenty of sovereign states that the US has been directly or indirectly involved with military regime changes that may not be considered "democratic".
In every case cited, the "democratically-elected" governments exceeded their authority and imposed highly controversial policies that alienated huge swathes of their countries. Mossadegh tried to arrest the Shah, who was the constitutional head of Iran. Allende tried to impose a Marxist dictatorship on Chile. Evita Peron impoverished Argentina and created a massive financial crisis that resulted in the collapse of the currency. In every case, the people who did the overthrowing were locals who were fed up with the policies of the coup targets, and our support, with the exception of Guatemala, consisted of friendly rhetoric, shared information and that's it. In Guatemala, we armed the rebels, but didn't do any of the fighting, and compared to the Soviet activities in the world, our policies were models of restraint.


In every single case, the justification for US actions is "national security". It's a trump card.

No, in every case, we supported those people with common interests and enemies. Would you have preferred that Iran turn into a dictatorship three decades earlier than it did, or that Chile had become another Cuba? Don't bother answering, we already know how you feel about communist dictators, the question is purely rhetorical.

NJCardFan
12-05-2011, 11:21 AM
Germany?

When did we overthrow Germany?

linda22003
12-05-2011, 11:56 AM
When did we overthrow Germany?

Presumably 1945, but it was hardly a "democratically elected government."

NJCardFan
12-05-2011, 01:40 PM
Presumably 1945, but it was hardly a "democratically elected government."

Also, we were not alone not to mention that it was World War II and not some coup.

Wei Wu Wei
12-05-2011, 07:50 PM
Even non-democratic states, look at Iraq. The Iraqi military never attacked the US, nor were they trying to or even capable of doing it, yet we invaded the country with extreme military force and collapsed their government.

Vietnam, Cambodia bombing, Libya, these were not cases where the US was acting defensively or ending a war someone else started.

WWII was a different story. Japan attacked us, and Germany declared war on us, so we brought the fight to them. However, in the wars / military actions / CIA black ops / propaganda campaigns after WWII, they were not cases of fighting back like with Japan, and they were all done in the name of "national security" in some form or another.

Wei Wu Wei
12-05-2011, 08:00 PM
Yes, but if Arbenz had not alienated the productive classes of Guatemala, there would have been no coup. In other words, we assisted, but did not overthrow.

Where do we get the justification to assist, arm, finance, or even directly support regime changes in foreign sovereign countries?

The answer from government officials and the CIA is always the same: "National Security".



This is utter BS. Allende won office with a plurality of the vote and then proceeded to govern as if he had a mandate to enslave the nation. His policies of property confiscation and gathering arms to militarize his political supporters enfuriated the majority of Chileans, who spent months rioting and striking before the coup.

Again, it wasn't our fight, yet the US supported Pinochet, who was a ruthless fascist.



In every case cited, the "democratically-elected" governments exceeded their authority and imposed highly controversial policies that alienated huge swathes of their countries. Mossadegh tried to arrest the Shah, who was the constitutional head of Iran. Allende tried to impose a Marxist dictatorship on Chile. Evita Peron impoverished Argentina and created a massive financial crisis that resulted in the collapse of the currency.

In every case, these were not our fights. They were done because of economic interests, but engaging in political or military warfare in foreign countries for the sake of economic interests is imperialism, pure and simple.


In every case, the people who did the overthrowing were locals who were fed up with the policies of the coup targets, and our support, with the exception of Guatemala, consisted of friendly rhetoric, shared information and that's it. In Guatemala, we armed the rebels, but didn't do any of the fighting, and compared to the Soviet activities in the world, our policies were models of restraint.

Ok, let's put this into perspective:

If there were an organized group of armed rebels in the United States, who were determined to violently overthrow the government, and a foreign nation like China or Iran decided to assist, arm, train, and finance these groups to support the rebellion, would you still consider that a "local issue", or would you consider it an act of war?






No, in every case, we supported those people with common interests and enemies. Would you have preferred that Iran turn into a dictatorship three decades earlier than it did, or that Chile had become another Cuba? Don't bother answering, we already know how you feel about communist dictators, the question is purely rhetorical.

The real reason was economic interests, we supported whoever would benefit US business interests, or secure access to resources such as oil. US foreign policy doesn't care at all about democracies or dictatorships. All that matters is that their actions align with the economic interests of those in power in the US.

Look at the middle east, the US puts sanctions on some countries, supports revolutions in others, and outright invades others, but look at Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is ruled by Muslim fundamentalists, the rights of women and minorities in Saudi Arabia are FAR more restricted even than in Iran, but the US focuses entirely on Iran while being all nice and chummy with Saudi Arabia. Well let's look at how the money and resources work in those two relationships.

Don't be naive.

Rockntractor
12-05-2011, 08:18 PM
Don't be naive.

Hmmm, this one will require enhanced reprogramming when the time comes.:rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
12-05-2011, 10:19 PM
Hmmm, this one will require enhanced reprogramming when the time comes.:rolleyes:

Are you saying you are already programmed?

Rockntractor
12-05-2011, 10:38 PM
Are you saying you are already programmed?

Yes and you are stuck between channels.

Odysseus
12-06-2011, 11:13 AM
Even non-democratic states, look at Iraq. The Iraqi military never attacked the US, nor were they trying to or even capable of doing it, yet we invaded the country with extreme military force and collapsed their government.
The first Gulf War was undertaken to drive Iraq out of Kuwait, an ally and critical supplier of oil. The Iraqi regime subsequently did attack the US on a daily basis, as the aircraft enforcing the no-fly rule, which was part of the cease-fire agreement that Saddam signed off on, were fired on daily, and that doesn't take into account the Iraqi attempt on the life of a former president and Iraq's complicity in the first WTC bombing.


Vietnam, Cambodia bombing, Libya, these were not cases where the US was acting defensively or ending a war someone else started.
Vietnam was in the process of being conquered by a Soviet proxy. It wasn't so much a war as a campaign in the Cold War. The bombing of Cambodia was specifically targeted at NVA troops who were using Cambodia as a staqing area, violating Cambodia's neutrality (and it was done with the permission of the Cambodian government, which could not expel the NVA on its own). Libya had a long history of terrorist acts against the United States, but when Obama ordered our entry into what became their civil war, he did so based on a flawed doctrine called "The Responsibility to Protect."


WWII was a different story. Japan attacked us, and Germany declared war on us, so we brought the fight to them. However, in the wars / military actions / CIA black ops / propaganda campaigns after WWII, they were not cases of fighting back like with Japan, and they were all done in the name of "national security" in some form or another.


Where do we get the justification to assist, arm, finance, or even directly support regime changes in foreign sovereign countries?
The same place that every other nation gets it. Show me a country that has not involved itself in the affairs of its neighbors.


The answer from government officials and the CIA is always the same: "National Security".
You make National Security sound like a perjorative. Nations with interests beyond their borders have security requirements that go beyond the immediate defense of those borders. Germany and Japan had longstanding plans to conquer the world, not just Europe and Asia, and the United States would have been attacked no matter what. The American entry into WWI was precipitated by two events, the sinking of the Lusitania and the interception of the Zimmerman telegram, both of which signaled the intent of the Axis Powers to violate American neutrality and treat us as a combatant, whether we declared war or not. No German or other Axis nation attacked American soil or military forces, but we entered the war anyway. Had Pearl Harbor not been bombed when it was, you know that eventually, Japan and Germany would have expanded their conquests to include the Americas, and the United States would have been attacked.


Again, it wasn't our fight, yet the US supported Pinochet, who was a ruthless fascist.
You can only make the claim that it wasn't our fight if you ignore the context of the Cold War, which was a global war of conquest fought between proxies of the super powers. Allende was forcing Chile into the Soviet sphere, against the will of the Chilean people, and putting a Soviet puppet state into South America. The prevention of the Soviet conquest of another satellite state made it our fight. The subsequent war against the communists that sought to undermine the junta (with Soviet aid) was far less bloody than the "peace" that Allende would have imposed, as history has demonstrated repeatedly. And while Pinochet was ruthless, he oversaw economic reforms that created a vibrant economy and voluntarily stepped down in favor of a democratic government. Let me know when Castro, Chavez or any of your other heroes do that.


In every case, these were not our fights. They were done because of economic interests, but engaging in political or military warfare in foreign countries for the sake of economic interests is imperialism, pure and simple.
Bull. In every case, you are conflating the most minimal US activities with overt acts of subversion. In the case of Argentina, we did nothing except recognize the junta after the coup.


Ok, let's put this into perspective:

If there were an organized group of armed rebels in the United States, who were determined to violently overthrow the government, and a foreign nation like China or Iran decided to assist, arm, train, and finance these groups to support the rebellion, would you still consider that a "local issue", or would you consider it an act of war?
You mean, like the Iranians already do? I do consider those acts of war, and if we fail to win, then we will be dominated by Sharia, as I've repeatedly warned. But, unlike you, I also recognize that this is how nations operate, and that it is our obligation to defend ourselves. The only case that you cited that comes close to this was the Guatemalan coup, which the US provided arms, training and support, but in every other case, we were spectators, or cheerleaders, at most.


The real reason was economic interests, we supported whoever would benefit US business interests, or secure access to resources such as oil. US foreign policy doesn't care at all about democracies or dictatorships. All that matters is that their actions align with the economic interests of those in power in the US.
Once again, you pretend that there was no other side fomenting revolutions. Did you happen to forget the USSR, or is it just not convenient for your arguments to mention them?


Look at the middle east, the US puts sanctions on some countries, supports revolutions in others, and outright invades others, but look at Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is ruled by Muslim fundamentalists, the rights of women and minorities in Saudi Arabia are FAR more restricted even than in Iran, but the US focuses entirely on Iran while being all nice and chummy with Saudi Arabia. Well let's look at how the money and resources work in those two relationships.

Don't be naive.

No argument there, except you calling me naive. Our Middle Eastern policies are haphazard and based on a complete lack of understanding of the forces in play there. We're still thinking in terms of Cold War allies, instead of looking at the civilization conflict now in play. Egyptian voters just gave 60% of the vote to Islamist parties, and that hasn't even included the rural election returns. Tunisia's Islamists are forming a government, Libya is now being run by former al Qaeda members, Turkey's ruling party is undoing the secular framework of the state as fast as they can, Kuwait's prime minister just resigned and the new government is going to include a far greater influence of their Islamists, Jordan is beginning to see its Islamists take bolder action there and the choices in Syria are between the Iranian proxy, Assad, and the Saudi proxies, the Muslim Brotherhood. The Caliphate is coalescing before our eyes, and you're still thinking in terms of Marxist analysis of economics. You're like a buggy whip manufacturer who is trying to sell them to GM and Chrysler in 2011, except that there was once a time when buggy whips were effective tools of transportation, while Marxism has never worked. It would be funny if the end result weren't going to be horrific.

Odysseus
12-07-2011, 02:42 PM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3OvZDbSKFJ0/Tt58eIXBGDI/AAAAAAAADtk/VrrMCoJ-P4E/s640/Depends_Department.gif