A New York mum claims an airport security guard forced her to drink her own breast milk to prove it wasn't a dangerous fluid.

Elizabeth McGarry says she's now considering legal action following the incident at JFK Airport.....Civil rights lawyer Ron Kuby said: "I'm all for random searches . . . but I do think the number of Caucasian, lactating mothers who have passed through al-Qaida training camps is negligible."

Full story:
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm...world.badtaste

Again, another example of abuse of power by the security screeners.

I guess they were afraid that she was going to squirt the pilot with the milk, which would cause a major delay since he would have to ground the plane so that he could go and shower.

I think I'm with the authorities on this one... How was the guard to know what it was? If it's Standard Operating Procedure to require liquids being carried aboard to be drunk in the guard's presence, then there must be no exceptions made. And does the lawyer really think being Caucasian should allow one to be excepted from the rules? C'mon...

The rules were changed in June 2002. Passengers are no longer required to drink carry-on liquids to show that they are harmless. How would you like to drink your shampoo, etc?

Bruce

good answer, Bruce

I guess I could take a sip of my cologne or mouthwash as well.

Hey what do you expect from a guy who thinks CO is a fantastic airline.
Mike

[This message has been edited by MIKESILV (edited 08-15-2002).]

A few weeks ago I had to take a drink of the coke that I was carrying & the gentleman behind me had to take a drink of the coffee he carried-We were told if you're carrying it thru-you must drink some;neither of us had a problem with it.I can't see why the guard is being criticized in this instance.As asked above-how does he know what it is?Should he just ask us-& believe whatever any of us say?What do you have in that cup?Oh,it's my medication.Oh,ok,go right thru!If it turned out to be a dangerous substance-we'd be all over him for that.We're living in different times now-what would have been totally outrageous a year ago might (unfortunately) be necessary today.

Oh, get real! What if it's really medication, and you already took your dosage for the day? Should you take another swig and overdose, just to satisfy some security notwit on a power trip? What about your shampoo? Should you try some of that, too? After all, we can't be too safe, can we?

In this particular case, the bottles of breast milk had already been through the x-ray machine. Nothing was hidden in the milk. The TSA's own rules say (since June, anyway) that passengers do not have to drink from closed containers.

This was abusive, plain and simple. Stop making excuses for these people.

Bruce

Bruce,

With regards to these types of issues (as well as many other issues in life) there are basically three types of people; those who lead, those who follow, and those who flip a coin.

Crisis causes the middle to disappear and the opposites to polarize. Sadly many Americans seem so irrationally frightened that they are willing to be lead by any purported authority figure that even suggests that they will provide them with the least little bit of personal security, whether or not that promise of security is real or merely vapor.

Reason and common sense play absolutely no roll here. The analogy of children, frightened by shadows lurking in their closet is most apropos.


[This message has been edited by anrkitec (edited 08-16-2002).]

bdschobel-if it was medication I couldn't take as it wasn't time for my dosage I would explain that, & no I wouldn't take it just to satisfy anyone;if he still insisted I would ask for a supervisor;and no,I wouldn't drink shampoo either.I don't think it's a cause for hysteria-just a judgment call about some imperfect rules in an imperfect world.I do not hesitate to stand up for my rights when I feel it's necessary,but I try to temper that with whats going on all around us at the time.I am not excusing anyone-I & my boyfriend were treated pretty shabbily on 2 occasions-I objected,requested a supervisor,& subsequently wrote letters.But because of those 2 people I don't condemn the lot. Just my opinion.

This posting, which is often seen in many variants, is typical of those who see themselves as above the rule of law, and more sophisticated, experienced, or intelligent than the mass population. Instead of just saying so directly, which would be deemed arrogant as well as inaccurate, such posters most typically cloak themselves in the flag, invoke the weakness of others versus their own (perceptual) wisdom, and obfuscate, often eloquently. I draw no judgement as regards the poster, merely point out what is typical of the content, in, as always, my own opinion.

The existence of an intellectual class has been a contentious point in political matters since the formation of America. Fortunately, the framers of the constitution, with great wisdom, created checks and balances to prevent this from happening. Some other countries with other systems of government are less fortunate, much to their own detriment, and that of their citizens.

In a majority rules system of representational government, minority advocacies, particularly those with an axe to grind out of step with what the rest of the country desires, have no choice but to draw attention to themselves in whatever way they can.

Again, I wish to express no disrespect towards the poster at all, but focus instead on the contents of the post.

I realize that this is really nothing more than pedestrian flame-bait, but I will take the opportunity to say that I in no way consider myself above the law. In fact it is the rule of law applied against a Constitutional metric that I hold most dear.

Yes, there are always bad laws, often made by good people, and yes there is a process for changing said.

However you seen to be missing the point as there is in fact no law to support the incident that was the impetus for this thread.

Your comments about the founding of this nation with regards to an intellectual class is simply incorrect and, if you will forgive, me rather silly. This nation was in fact founded by an intellectual class. They were gentleman farmers, educated as best as the period allowed. They were voracious readers of the Philosophs. They immersed themselves in French intellectual culture, in particular the Enlightenment and it’s greatest tome; Diderot’s Encyclopedie.

As I mentioned earlier and at great length in another thread, the entirety of the discussion and debate surrounding the creation of the Constitution, i.e.The Federalist, dealt with ancient Greek models of Democracy, particularly the philosophy of Plato. While they wisely replaced the notion of an individual Philosopher King with our current tripartite form of government, nothing could have been more intellectual in nature.

By all means stand firmly by your own opinions and ideals but do not try and slip past some form of 'School House Rock' pap masquerading as real history.

If we ever find ourselves flying together fear not, take shelter behind me, and don’t worry, my shoulders are broad.




[This message has been edited by anrkitec (edited 08-16-2002).]

You quote history eloquently, albeit while ignoring every point made that refutes your opinions. I understand. Of course, I did not dispute the existence of an intellectual class among the founding fathers; they merely saw past it.

I am sure you have 5,000 variants of the same tired, old excuses for why your ideas are superior to those of the masses, who in majority disagree with your feelings about security. You may confuse, mislabel, and miscontrue as needed to support your case. Fortunately, neither my opinion nor your matters at all taken singularly. The specific incident in this thread is ridiculous, and if true, the guards involved have earned their dismissal. But the existence of bad guards does not negate the value of air security.

I will be away for several days, and thus have limited time to make the same points over and over. If someone finds a novel approach, I will do my best to shine the light of truth on their words.

Brian,

I will begin by saying that I have come to respect you and your strong, eloquent advocacy of your opinions. You are obviously an intelligent person, and this country could use more such people. However, having said that, I must criticize your apparent inability to appreciate the views of other intelligent, articulate people.

You really do not have a lock on the "light of truth." Some of us believe that we get to hold that light from time to time. Of course, many people who believe that they are holding the light of truth are really holding something else entirely!

I wish that you could understand that some of us -- certainly I am one -- sincerely believe that the current "security" regime is damaging the country in lots of economic ways and is a growing threat to our civil liberties as well. That is why we oppose it. Even if you believe that we are wrong, our motivation is good, and you might try to appreciate that.

Bruce

Brian, read carefully this quote above from the person you are trying to hold a discussion with, Anrkitec. It tells you everything you need to know. A favor has been done to you by concisely revealing true colors and attitude.

Ask yourself how possible it is to have a reasonable discussion on the subject with someone who holds such a totally dismissive attitude towards mainstream Americans and the seriousness of the threat we face ("children" and "shadows in the closet"). Thousands were slaughtered by "shadows in the closet", and upset people attempting to stop the promised repeat are "children".

This discussion is so over. You're right, but don't waste your time. We can see the truth without your even having to respond.

[This message has been edited by benoit (edited 08-17-2002).]