Special Needs Son Harassed by TSA at Detroit Metropolitan Airport [Archive]

View Full Version : Special Needs Son Harassed by TSA at Detroit Metropolitan Airport

Teh One Who Knocks

06-11-2011, 12:16 PM

By TARYN ASHER - WJBK-TV Channel 2 (Detroit)

ROMULUS, Mich. (WJBK) - The Mandy family says they were on their way to the happiest place on earth (Disney), but had to go through hell to get there.

"I realize they're trying to keep people safe, but come on, does he look like a terrorist?" said Dr. David Mandy.

The family was going through security when two TSA agents singled Drew Mandy out for a special pat down. Drew is severely mentally disabled. He's 29, but his parents said he has the mental capacity of a two-year-old, which made the experience that followed at metro Detroit's McNamera Terminal that much harder to deal with.

"You have got to be kidding me. I honestly felt that those two agents did not know what they were doing," Mandy told us.

Dr. Mandy claimed they asked Drew to place his feet on the yellow shoe line, something he didn't understand. They proceeded to pat his pants down, questioning the padding which was his adult diapers. When the agents asked Drew to take his hand and rub the front and back of his pants so they could swab it for explosives, his dad stepped in and tried to explain that Drew was mentally challenged.

"They said, 'Please, sir, we know what we're doing,'" Mandy said.

The TSA agents saw Drew holding a six-inch plastic hammer.

"My son carries his ball and his hammer for security. He goes everywhere with (them)," said Mandy.

The TSA it seems saw the toy as a weapon.

"He took the hammer and he tapped the wall. 'See, it's hard. It could be used as a weapon,'" Mandy explained. "So, Drew's also holding the ball, and I said, 'Well, how about the ball?' He (said), 'Oh, he can keep that."

Dr. Mandy was told he would need to have the toy shipped if he wanted to keep it, a process which caused them to almost miss their plane, so he pitched it.

"It just killed me to have to throw it away because he's been carrying this like for 20 years," Mandy said.

Disgusted, he wrote TSA a letter. A response wasn't far behind.

"Very polite. Very apologetic. He was embarrassed. He (said) we have to review how we deal with special needs individuals. Obviously, he (said), we're doing a terrible job," Mandy told us. "It made me feel that there is still hope, that there is still justice and that there's still somebody who listens to people's problems (in) the federal government.

That's because federal security told him there are 800 TSA agents at Metro Airport and they are all going to be retrained based on Drew's case.

We also spoke to a federal security director who said this incident is still under investigation, but as far as they can tell right now, better judgment was needed.

The TSA took away one toy hammer, but they were still able to take another toy hammer on board the airplane. How did that happen?

Drew's mother, always prepared, had another one in her backpack and that already passed through security with no problem.

AntZ

06-11-2011, 12:27 PM

Deepsepia

06-11-2011, 01:59 PM

This is a great thing!

This mentally handicapped guy could have easily been recruited to stick a dildo bomb up his ass! Bravo to Janet Napolitano for not allowing any kind of profiling! http://www.smilies-and-more.de/pics/smilies/hands/101.gif This family flying to Orlando is definitely a threat!

What is your non-stop outrage with Janet Napolitano?

In fact we do profile, extensively.

We profile based on stuff that's objective (one way ticket, paying cash, bought on eve of flight, country of citizenship) and we profile based on stuff that's subjective (nervous behavior)

Folks with Arab and Muslim names don't sail through the airports of our land with courtesy and ease . . . Given that they're actually rather badly treated, its a reasonable public relations gesture on the part of Napolitano to say "look we don't mean to give you a hard just because you're a Muslim" . . . what is of course left out of that is "you're going to get a hard time because you have cousins in Pakistan or Yemen"

This particular story is a tough one. You have a mentally handicapped guy who while he may have "the mental age of a 2 year old" looks like a 29 year old, and is carrying a hammer.

Cops face analogous situations (kid with toy gun, drunken guy with a knife), and its simply very, very hard to know what to do. We obviously don't want to be permitting folks to carry hammers onto airplanes, and its hard to figure out what TSA is supposed to do with a person who "carries his hammer for security". You want a "security blanket", make it a blanket, OK?

http://picload.org/image/ldlowi/linus_resized_30.jpg

deebakes

06-11-2011, 03:35 PM

too bad...

AntZ

06-11-2011, 05:01 PM

What is your non-stop outrage with Janet Napolitano?

Cops face analogous situations (kid with toy gun, drunken guy with a knife), and its simply very, very hard to know what to do. We obviously don't want to be permitting folks to carry hammers onto airplanes, and its hard to figure out what TSA is supposed to do with a person who "carries his hammer for security". You want a "security blanket", make it a blanket, OK?

My problem with Janet Napolitano is, she is staggeringly inept!! She was a leftest hack lawyer that had no qualifications for this position besides the fact Obama touted that she was a Governor of a border state! That sure helped with her war AGAINST Arizona Sheriffs that try to enforce the law in the last couple of years! Her history of inept statements from "man-caused" disasters, to declaring the "System worked" concerning the underwear bomber. This administration has been the best example of "The Keystone Cops" when it comes to national security. Case after case of these idiots not having any idea what they're doing.

First, I never once argued for less security! I question the need for "enhanced" checks of the very young and elderly! My mother and aunt who are in their late 70's and early 80's respectively, have had their share of close inspections. And like I've seen with my own two eyes and have read about many people getting inspected while Arab men young and old pass through normally. That's a fact, and it's the basis for many of the complaints. Sure we all know about the guy that allowed his western wife to try to carry a bomb through, and the domestic converts. The fact still remains that people from the middle east are the ones most likely to try something. For the time being at least.

Deepsepia

06-11-2011, 05:24 PM

. This administration has been the best example of "The Keystone Cops" when it comes to national security. Case after case of these idiots not having any idea what they're doing.

Really? Seem like they're doing OK to me . . .

http://picload.org/image/ldlpca/firefoxscreensna.jpg

http://picload.org/image/ldlpad/obama-osama-bin-.jpg

AntZ

06-11-2011, 06:05 PM

Deepsepia

06-11-2011, 06:32 PM

Funny, you try prop up his domestic team with accomplishments from the NSA and CIA?? Programs that were all put in place by the Bush team with little to no help from Democrats besides non stop criticism, insults, and whining! Go back and look at how much Democrats supported drone development in the 90's :lol:

The Bush team put our resources into Iraq-- where bin Laden never was.

The very first national security initiatives of the Obama Administration were to

1) increase US forces in Afghanistan
2) increase drone attacks in Pakistan
3) increase resources devoted to finding bin Laden.

None of these were "Bush Administration policies". The Obama national security team's priorities are clearly responsible for the progress we've made on al Qaeda.

If you'll recall, "Bush Administration policies" were to divert massive resources from the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban, and to put them in Iraq, where neither were present.

We only have so many SF guys, only so many translators-- for most of the Bush Administration, the single biggest military priority was trying to dig out from the Iraq disaster.

Bush himself said the finding bin Laden was not "a priority".

"...Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a county [sic]. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't know whether he's in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we just don't know...."
- Bush, in remarks in a Press Availablity with the Press Travel Pool,
The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on
official White House site

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02

AntZ

06-11-2011, 06:48 PM

1) increase US forces in Afghanistan
2) increase drone attacks in Pakistan
3) increase resources devoted to finding bin Laden.

1) increase US forces in Afghanistan - His policy was to withdraw completely! Only after his policies allowed a vast increase in U.S. deaths because of his new Rules of Engagement". The surge was patterned after the Iraq surge, what he swore would be a failure as a Senator, and his insults of David Petraeus. The same man that bailed him out!

2) increase drone attacks in Pakistan - As the new drones came on line and the new upgraded models came available, there was the benefit of "increased drone attacks". When were the first drone attacks started in Pakistan again? Hhmmmm...I wonder?

3) increase resources devoted to finding bin Laden. - Because of the newly manufactured resources! Could there have been a few more that could have come over from Iraq, sure, but that would be a lame excuse for a victory lap from the left.

You might want to check those blinders!

How again does this show that Janet Napolitano is doing a stellar job?

Deepsepia

06-11-2011, 06:55 PM

1) increase US forces in Afghanistan - His policy was to withdraw completely!

That's simply wrong. As they took office, they were ordering a very large buildup in troops. When that didn't produce the expected results, they held a policy review and then added even more troops. You simply don't have your facts right.

2) increase drone attacks in Pakistan - As the new drones came on line and the new upgraded models came available, there was the benefit of "increased drone attacks". When were the first drone attacks started in Pakistan again? Hhmmmm...I wonder?

Again, its a simple question of facts. The Obama team came into office and moved resources from other parts of the world to Pakistan and Afghanistan. Its a fact.

3) increase resources devoted to finding bin Laden. - Because of the newly manufactured resources! Could there have been a few more that could have come over from Iraq, sure, but that would be a lame excuse for a victory lap from the left.

No, not "newly manufactured resources"

The Obama team moved regular Army, Special Forces and other intelligence assets into Pakistan and Afghanistan.

These were not "newly manufactured" -- they were simply being used to do the wrong thing. We have a very limited number of skilled translators, analysts and operators, the kinds of people who can move in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan. During the Bush Administration, a lot of these folks were in Iraq. You can't be looking for bin Laden in Pakistan if you're in Baghdad.

The results speak for themselves. We're killing a lot of al Qaeda who we've been hunting for a long time, just today, another bad guy bit the dust, although there's no mention of US involvement, I'd suspect that there's a US hand in it

http://picload.org/image/ldlwia/firefoxscreensna.jpg

AntZ

06-11-2011, 07:12 PM

That's simply wrong. As they took office, they were ordering a very large buildup in troops. When that didn't produce the expected results, they held a policy review and then added even more troops. You simply don't have your facts right.

Again, its a simple question of facts. The Obama team came into office and moved resources from other parts of the world to Pakistan and Afghanistan. Its a fact.

No, not "newly manufactured resources"

The Obama team moved regular Army, Special Forces and other intelligence assets into Pakistan and Afghanistan.

These were not "newly manufactured" -- they were simply being used to do the wrong thing. We have a very limited number of skilled translators and operators, the kinds of people who can move in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan. During the Bush Administration, a lot of these folks were in Iraq. You can't be looking for bin Laden in Pakistan if you're in Baghdad.

Post your facts!

History seems to have taken a different coarse from the one your talking about?? :lol:

And "newly manufactured resources" was the advanced drones.

If Obama came in with the plan for vast increases, why again was Gen. McChrystal begging for more troops at the end of 2009 in his long report?

Deepsepia

06-11-2011, 07:24 PM

Post your facts!

History seems to have taken a different coarse from the one your talking about?? :lol:

I have the facts, I start with them:

http://picload.org/image/ldcggg/firefoxscreensna.jpg

As Obama took office, his national security team knew that the war in Afghanistan was going badly. They immediately added 17,000 troops, and continued adding throughout 2009.

In this February 17, 2009 statement President Obama authorized a 50 percent increase in U.S. troops in Afghanistan, beginning in May 2009.

"There is no more solemn duty as President than the decision to deploy our armed forces into harm’s way. I do it today mindful that the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan demands urgent attention and swift action. The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan, and al Qaeda supports the insurgency and threatens America from its safe-haven along the Pakistani border.

This increase is necessary to stabilize a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, which has not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires.

http://www.cfr.org/afghanistan/statement-president-obama-afghanistan-february-2009/p18557

You might also read the President's March 2009 "Remarks on New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/us/politics/27obama-text.html) -- too long to post it all here, but a salient comment

So let me be clear: al Qaeda and its allies – the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks – are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the U.S. homeland from its safe-haven in Pakistan.

AntZ

06-11-2011, 10:33 PM

I have the facts, I start with them:

http://picload.org/image/ldcggg/firefoxscreensna.jpg

As Obama took office, his national security team knew that the war in Afghanistan was going badly. They immediately added 17,000 troops, and continued adding throughout 2009.

You might also read the President's March 2009 "Remarks on New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/us/politics/27obama-text.html) -- too long to post it all here, but a salient comment

His speech was typically political concerning his "strategy", he was taking a shot at Bush when he knew full well that Afg. was handed off to a International force! The very thing the Dems. had whined about.

I have already ordered the deployment of 17,000 troops that had been requested by General McKiernan for many months. (From the same Secretary of Defense that also works for Obama) These soldiers and Marines will take the fight to the Taliban in the south and east, and give us a greater capacity to partner with Afghan Security Forces and to go after insurgents along the border. This push will also help provide security in advance of the important presidential election in August.

At the same time, we will shift the emphasis of our mission to training and increasing the size of Afghan Security Forces, so that they can eventually take the lead in securing their country. That is how we will prepare Afghans to take responsibility for their security, and how we will ultimately be able to bring our troops home.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/us/politics/27obama-text.html?pagewanted=3

The International Force saw more violence, his way to prove it was being over looked was by sending McChrystal and the 17,000 with strict new Rules of Engagement! Then no more at all! After the stopping of close air support around ANY villages, and the tight restrictions, U.S. deaths and casualties skyrocketed! McChrystal's demands for more troops went unanswered and he was unable to meet with Obama coming to a head when he ran off to Europe to grace Chicago with the Olympics. Then as was played out with the Rolling Stone scandal, McChrystal had enough and essentially threw away his career because he was disgusted with this team you admire. If his plan was going to plan, why did this happen? Why was McChrystal fed up? Especially that he was Obama's man? Why did Obama need David Petraeus to surge and dump the bullshit new "Rules of Engagement"?

You posted what he said he would do, but he didn't do it until forced! Why again is Gitmo still open? You know, the one he signed closed with a Executive Order under the pomp and circumstance, flash bulbs, and cameras?

And, how again does this show that Janet Napolitano is doing a stellar job?

Deepsepia

06-11-2011, 10:57 PM

His speech was typically political concerning his "strategy", he was taking a shot at Bush when he knew full well that Afg. was handed off to a International force! The very thing the Dems. had whined about.

Again Anthemz, you're simply wrong.

Bush invaded Afghanistan, then moved US forces off into his "war of choice" against Saddam.

Bush explicitly said that finding Osama bin Laden was not "a priority"

The Obama team came in, made it a priority, and now Osama's dead. By "making it a priority" I mean adding resources, adding focus, and demanding results. The Bush Administration's focus was Iraq. The Obama Administration's is Pakistan and al Qaeda. That's not "political" -- that's a fact. Obama gave a speech, said "this is what we're going to do" -- and then we did it. I believe that bin Laden could have been killed or captured many years ago, if the prior Administration had made it their priority . . . we'll never know for sure, but we do know that it wasn't a priority for them.

How does this make us safer?

al Qaeda was and remains a threat to the US. In the last few weeks, we've killed bin Laden, Ilyas Kshmiri and now Fazul Abdullah Mohammed.

These were all people with American "blood on their hands", and all folks who were actively plotting against us.

Killing them is certainly better than having them running around while we bleed ourselves white in a foolish war in Iraq, right.

AntZ

06-11-2011, 11:28 PM

Again Anthemz, you're simply wrong.

Bush invaded Afghanistan, then moved US forces off into his "war of choice" against Saddam.

Bush explicitly said that finding Osama bin Laden was not "a priority"

The Obama team came in, made it a priority, and now Osama's dead. By "making it a priority" I mean adding resources, adding focus, and demanding results. The Bush Administration's focus was Iraq. The Obama Administration's is Pakistan and al Qaeda. That's not "political" -- that's a fact. Obama gave a speech, said "this is what we're going to do" -- and then we did it. I believe that bin Laden could have been killed or captured many years ago, if the prior Administration had made it their priority . . . we'll never know for sure, but we do know that it wasn't a priority for them.

How does this make us safer?

Bush explicitly said that finding Osama bin Laden was not "a priority"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CkON1iQElo

So did the Dems!

You keep repeating yourself because you want to believe Obama did the things you said, but keep ignoring what actually happened! There was NO Rolling Stone scandal? There was NO embarrassing 60+ page report from McChrystal that had calls for his firing for it getting made public?

You are just once again cherry picking your facts to back up your conclusions without any regard to how it was achieved!

Just like when you went on and on, a couple years ago, insisting that Clinton's war room was responsible for catching the planned Library Tower bomber at the Canadian Border. When it was a border patrol agent that had a gut feeling and didn't like the way guy was acting. But because Clinton was in the WH at the moment this good agent did her job, you gave Clinton all the credit. :rolleyes:

So here, Obama sent window dressing, and all the problems played out that year. David Petraeus arrives with the condition of running it his way without the micro management, and he brings the surge. But in your eyes A+B=C, because Obama fell out of the window by accident into the swimming pool, he kept his promise to go swimming! :rolleyes:

If you'll recall, "Bush Administration policies" were to divert massive resources from the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban, and to put them in Iraq, where neither were present.

So Al Queda was never in Iraq? They sure showed up!

Bin Laden probably had been in Pak. the whole time after Tora Bora, how exactly did they get the name of his courier again? Was it by a guy that was captured and interrogated? When did that happen again? Yeah, we all know Obama supported the capture and interrogation of all those people!

How again does this show that Janet Napolitano is doing a stellar job? :-k

Griffin

06-11-2011, 11:55 PM

Franks and Beans! Franks and Beans!

W. Earl Brown did a most EXCELLENT job of portraying a "mentally challenged" person.

...I'm sure that a lowly terrorist would be completely incapable of passing themselves off as something they weren't.

Hal-9000

06-12-2011, 08:09 PM

People with disabilities, like other minority groups, strive for and deserve equal treatment in daily life.

Unfortunately this is part of it.The airline personal don't know that a person is disabled...or a non-threat when encountering someone for the first time.

minz

06-12-2011, 08:17 PM

A 27 year old with the mental age of two is pretty hard to miss, what they did to this lad is just wrong, ive read all the posts about national security etc and I have to call bull shit on that, this man was essentially a toddler, to not even allow his parent/carer to assist and to ask him to do things that no other toddler or child with a similar age rage would be asked to do is just shocking!!! My niece is 27 and has a mental age of 2, the fucking discrimination that girl has to endure on a daily basis is outragous, these people need to grow up themselves and start living in the real world, uneducated bastards!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hal-9000

06-12-2011, 08:39 PM

minz

06-12-2011, 08:46 PM

Minz?

I'm ashamed to admit this but when I was younger two of my friends pretended they were disabled and got free pizza because of it...
The airline folk don't really know the truth about a passenger's appearance and we on the other hand have the benefit of the story to tell us.

Yeah maybe the plastic hammer thing was heavy handed...again, if you're going to pat down a fellow with brown skin and nervous eyes, everyone should get the same treatment.

I just find these stories irritating, I’m pretty sure he will have had some kind of documentation of his disability to be able to fly, Sam has to have it, all they needed to do was ask the parents, these people are the same one who tell their kids "don’t play with him/her they're not normal" and so the cycle of ignorance continues. It just gets my back up, these people are NOT second class citizens, they are human beings with rights.

Hal-9000

06-12-2011, 09:19 PM

minz

06-12-2011, 09:58 PM

and that's the whole point..he was being treated like anyone else who they felt deserved a pat down.

Let me approach this a different way.If I put something in my pants and then rolled up to security in a wheelchair, should the airport officials exclude me because of my apparent visible disability?

Not at all, but they should take into consideration the fact that this lad as a severe mental disability, how distressing would that be for a 2 year old to be taken from his parents side and given commands that he just doesn’t understand? Well that same distress would have been felt by this lad too, it clearly states that his Dad tried to intervene and they wouldn’t allow it, at no time was any consideration given to his disability.

Griffin

06-13-2011, 01:46 AM

.. but they should take into consideration the fact that this lad as a severe mental disability...

and they are supposed to know this how? Because of how someone acts? That is called profiling.

...Or maybe just take the word of a supposed family member that happens to be traveling with them.

How about this, why not just let any one that looks harmless board without any interference!

minz

06-13-2011, 07:59 AM

and they are supposed to know this how? Because of how someone acts? That is called profiling.

...Or maybe just take the word of a supposed family member that happens to be traveling with them.

How about this, why not just let any one that looks harmless board without any interference!

Like I said in a previous post, the parents will have had some form of documentation on them, Sam has to have it to say she's fit to fly, all they need to do is check, it’s not rocket science, and just a little understanding of how traumatic something like this is to a person who has a mental age of two, I’m not saying allow everyone with a disability to sail through, what I am saying is that they need to take into consideration he has special needs and to treat that person accordingly.

Acid Trip

06-13-2011, 03:37 PM

I'd love to hear the reasoning as to why a plastic ball was allowed but not a plastic hammer. Both are plastic and both make a noise when hit against a wall so both should have been banned. Then we have the 2nd plastic hammer in the mom's carry on that went through without problems.

The TSA took away one toy hammer, but they were still able to take another toy hammer on board the airplane. How did that happen?

Drew's mother, always prepared, had another one in her backpack and that already passed through security with no problem.

Clearly the TSA is at the top of their game!

Teh One Who Knocks

06-13-2011, 03:43 PM

Exactly....it would be one thing if the TSA was consistent, but they aren't, not even close. The only thing they are consistent about is their inconsistency :wha:

Muddy

06-13-2011, 04:01 PM

It's got to be crazy tough to have a special needs child...

Acid Trip

06-13-2011, 04:48 PM

The only thing they are consistent about is their inconsistency

Consistently inconsistent. I like it.