Just because there is an easy way around a security measure, doesn't mean that the security measure shouldn't be carried out. The 9/11 terrorists were highly organized and obviously knew the airport security well, but that isn't always the case. Think about the idiot who tried to light his shoe on fire. He would have been successful if he had about 2 more IQ points and got up to lock himself in the bathroom before he pulled out the matches. The breast milk test is legit because it is possible to sneak explosives in liquid form. Maybe more security measures should be taken in addition to that, but it shouldn't be abandoned.
Doctor Robert- Do you agree that it's ridiculous to make her drink all 3 bottles of milk even after she offered to do the sip test?
Yeah, I agree that they did the test wrong. I was just following some tangents. I think Heypartner is right. It sounds like incompetance to me more than a civil rights issue. I doubt that there was any prejudice or bad intent involved, since it would be inconvenient for the security personel to require she drink ALL of the milk. They probably required her to do it because they thought they were performing their jobs correctly.
Agreed. I'm sure they didn't have malicious intentions, but they performed their jobs incompentently to the point that their decision lacked simple common sense and decency. I don't know about a civil rights suit, but she deserves an apology and some free airline tickets.
We can discuss how much milk she should drink, and that's all well and good. But nobody has dealt with a point that another poster raised earlier. The sip test only applies to unmarked containers. I could put liquid explosive into an empty Prell bottle and march right onto the plane without question. That is a much more likely scenario. We have now all heard about the ludicrous things these screeners do. 1) This thread's topic. 2) GI Joe guns 3) Women having their breasts poked and prodded in plain view of others because their implants set off the detectors. She was on her way to Houston for breast cancer treatment following her mastectomy and had notes from her doctor which they refused to read. 4) 2 men of middle eastern descent (they were born here) were dragged off the plane. They had not caused a disturbance or anything..in fact one of them was asleep in his seat. They were then forced by the female security to unzip their pants in front of God and everybody at the security station. Not a private room but in plain view by the metal detector. 5) They stopped and searched Al Gore twice. The best time for a terrorist to get on board is right behind Al Gore...the former VP has been researched at several airports. I want security as much as the next guy, but the bottom line is that these people are out of control.
It was not personal...but thanks for making it inflammatory. I'm saying that an opening post misled us without links. "Show us the links" is a very valid request. I have show links. Until you show us two stories about a women with 3 baby bottles, and I to believe you are the confused one. Two stories of 3 baby bottles in 2 days...come on.
The operative word in your point is "made." There is no "made" them take a gun out and kill themselves or swallow a poisonous substance. It is just a screening process. And it IS THE SCREENING PROCESS! We are not making this up. sheesh
First off. This woman offered to taste the milk and give it to the child. So, unless your wife is a breastfeeding woman, I'll believe the breastfeeding woman in question and my pediatric brother on this one.
I saw the story on TV and posted it. I didn't realize that only stories gathered on the Internet are fair game. There was the woman I saw on Hannity & Colmes at JFK, and then there was a female attorney who was stopped in a similar manner at DFW. If you don't believe it it's not my fault. Some of us don't spend our entire lives scouring the Internet for our news. Until you understand the market forces at play then you are beyond reach. That attorney that was stopped in Dallas needed that flight. For her, it wasn't an option. So it was drink it...and by the way you have to. She faught it and won...but it shouldn't have gotten that far. And it is a flawed one. You never hear of tstories like this at the Israeli airports...and they have the most advanced screening process in the world. There have been news stories about how many times they were able to get hazardous materials past US airport security. It's probably because they're preoccupied with making a woman drink her breast milk. And I notice that you never answered my concern about hazardous materials put in an empty shampoo bottle. How would your beloved flawed process combat that? It wouldn't. The process needs an overhaul. There have been poor processes throughout history that have been made better after incidents. To say "it's the process," and leave it at that is a ridiculous argument.
Whether you want to make fun of people "scouring the Internet for our news" vs the people who watch bad TV news is up to you. Fact is: Your story has no link. If it was in a newspaper it will have a link. If it is AP wire, it will have a link. Mine does. If it has a second case of a previous big story, it will be mentioned. Your version has no link. Until it does with quotes, your version is snopes.com material. Despite all that...I have SHOWN YOU that a mother will not complain about drinking her own milk. That is PROVEN by my story. So, your woman, if she exists, is a whiner.
uhhh. do you see how you are proving that "sipping from liquid" is required until you have the "most advanced screening process in the world." Until you do, the screening process is more simplistic: Taste it, have the baby taste it, or throw it away. Contamination that endangers the child is not significant enough of a factor for the woman in my story to worry about or pediatricians. Show up EARLY, Bring your pump. Taste it. Give it to the baby. Breastfeed on board in public or private My link shows a woman who tried to COMPLY WITH THAT. The security guards were stupid. Your story is snopes.com material until we see otherwise.
My wife is a breastfeeding woman. I don't care what that woman offered. That isn't relevant to the issue of contamination of breast milk.
Searched as a visitor seeing my friends off to New York. My guy friend had long hair/my other friend she had dyed hair. They searched through all of their bags and frisked and searched us for just being with them. I guess that's not racial profiling though and that's too bad.Actually the guy I was with dropping them off was black. I am caucasian and the security people were black so is that racial profiling? Who knows!It was lame though however!
First off, she exists. I have nothing to gain by making it up...what exactly is your problem? Do you mean to be personal about this or is it just a gift? I'll be sure to send a notice to the producers of Hannity & Colmes that you won't believe their story until they provide a link. That's just r****ded really. I certainly said no such thing. I merely pointed out a better screening process. You have not mentioned one single thing to show that this is at all effective as a screening process. You also never dealt with my scenario regarding liquid explosives in a shampoo bottle...I guess you have no witty snopes.com related barb to throw about that one.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-08-08-breast-milk_x.htm Does this make you feel better heypartner. I think you really owe me an apology for insinuating that I was making it up. I'll be sure not to hold my breath. I've never had a problem with you heypartner...until now. You're tone toward the validity of my post was simply unwarranted.
