Would Lenore Zimmerman lie?
Probably not. When she says that she was strip searched at JFK airport by two TSA agents, who required her to remove her pants and bloomers, it’s unimaginable that she was making it up. But there’s a problem. There’s no video of it happening. She was taken to a private room, where no one else could see what happened. If there is a video of what happened inside the room, it hasn’t been made public.
Therefore, it never happened. That’s the TSA’s position, and they’re sticking to it.
That’s not to say that TSA Bob is a heartless fellow.
You may have heard in the news about an elderly woman who is stating she was strip searched at New York’s JFK airport by TSA officers. TSA contacted the passenger to apologize that she feels she had an unpleasant screening experience; however, TSA does not include strip searches in its protocols and a strip search did not occur in this case.
By using bold faced type, TSA Bob makes it absolutely clear that a strip search could not possibly have happened since the TSA doesn’t do such things. Whew. Dodged a bullet there.
Brian Tannebaum questions the efficacy of even noticing Lenore Zimmerman’s complaint.
I write not to express outrage at the notion that airport security would ask some old lady to take her pants off, I write to ask what the point is in even talking about it?
What’s the point of pounding the keyboard to rant about the unbelievable power of TSA and the cowards in Congress who allow it to continue?
Very little will ever change.
Perhaps he would feel differently if there was a video of this nice old woman without her knickers. While the existence of video, showing the many things that never, ever happened before the existence of video, informs us that sometimes the very people we think are there to protect us behave very badly, we’ve grown jaded. We have plenty of video now to show that police lie, beat the crap out of people for no good reason, even kill people needlessly and then lie to cover it up. We know this because we have video conclusively proving it.
There is no one in America with a computer who can credibly deny these things happen. They can rationalize why it’s not consequential, whether because the person deserved it anyway, or it’s the price we have to pay for self-preservation, or cops and TSA agents have a very difficult job and it’s too much to expect them to be perfect. These are very forgiving people.
But the need to rationalize wrong happens only when we’re forced to confront it. Damn those videos. Here, there is no video, and thus nothing to stop TSA Bob from doing what government has done successfully forever. Deny it ever happened.
But TSA Bob is a shrewd fellow, well-trained in the magic of marketing, and he seizes the opportunity to remind us that, even though this never happened, there are excellent reasons why it should.
The passenger opted out of advanced imaging technology screening, requested a pat-down and told the officers that she was wearing a back brace or support belt which required private screening.
Private screening was conducted by two female officers. The item was removed, rescreened, and the passenger was cleared for travel. Nothing unusual was depicted on the CCTV as the passenger and two female officers entered and exited the room. The wheelchair attendant assisted the passenger in departing the checkpoint area for the gate.
Terrorists remain focused on attacking transportation through tactics such as concealing explosives under clothing. Further, as evidenced by the Christmas Day 2009 attempted bombing, concealed anomalies under clothing must continue to be resolved and cleared as part of the screening process to ensure the item does not pose a threat to the safety of the traveling public. Terrorists and their targets may also range in age. Read here about a group of elderly men who were planning on using toxic ricin against U.S. citizens, U.S government and officials.
Anyone. Anyone can be a threat, a terrorist, bent on destruction. Old women. toddlers, anyone. Whether it’s a bomb planted in a shoe, or in underwear, or even a bodily crevice. Why would you question the will of a terrorist, a person who has already made the choice of giving up their life to destroy ours, from having a bomb implanted deep within their anus? It could happen, and when the TSA finds it and stops it, you will be extremely thankful that it wasn’t you or your child on that plane that would have exploded but for the heroic vigilance of the TSA.
But the TSA doesn’t make airplane passengers remove their old lady undergarments. It is not included in its protocols. It didn’t happen, and there’s no video to show otherwise.
So Lenore Zimmerman, who seems to be a lovely woman from Long Island, a snowbird flying to Florida to escape the harsh northern winters that chills her very bones, must have been terribly confused. Perhaps she had a senior moment. Maybe she’s antagonistic toward the government. Even anarchists grow old, you know. This could be her way of trying to embarrass the TSA, by fabricating a story of being strip searched at JFK Airport when protocols preclude it from being possible.
Without a video, we can never be certain that Lenore Zimmerman isn’t one of them. But if we had a video, unsavory as the image of Ms. Zimmerman’s knickerless lower torso might be, would it change anything? It hasn’t thus far.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

I bet the TSA is playing semantics, here. Pulling down an old lady’s knickers may not qualify as a “strip search” in the TSA’s lexicon. That would be about what I would expect from this agency.
Maybe, but then TSA Bob’s argument would be monumentally disingenuous. Are you calling TSA Bob disingenuous?
Why yes, I think I am.
Frequent flyers refer to the spokesdroid infesting the TSA blog as “Blogdad Bob”. There is a reason for this.
His predecessor was at least entertaining. All Blogdad Bob does is ensure that I will nnever again set foot in a commercial airport until the remnants of TSA occupy a museum of horrors in SW DC.
There’s something about using someone’s name to ridicule him that disturbs me. Maybe it’s that it’s juvenile. Maybe it’s the lack of substantive critical thought. Maybe it’s that it’s too easy. Which ever it is, I don’t care for it.
TSA’s Blogger Bob isn’t known for his honesty so anything penned under his name is questionable.
This is the guy who stated that Whole Body Imager images were suitable for children to view. A Denver TSA official has stated the images are very graphic. So how much stock can we give to Blogger Bob’s writings when he advocates showing graphic images of naked people to children?
Bill Forster, a former TSA screener, wrote this on his website after the incident with Mrs. Zimmerman:
“She claims TSA officers took down her undies. I don’t doubt it. When I worked at LAX I saw my fair share of genitals.”
Eww. This could explain a lot about why the agents are so screwed up.
From ABC news story titled “Now Three Grandmas Say They Were Strip-Searched at JFK” (sorry, I don’t think I’m allowed to post link here):
‘Law enforcement officials confirmed to ABC News that the women were strip searched by TSA agents.
‘A senior law enforcement official who has worked at New York’s JFK airport for years told ABC News that the incidents expose the security agency to mockery.
‘”Any law enforcement professional with any time experience would tell you that if you can’t tell the difference between an 80-year-old with a health issue and someone who might need further screening, then this kind of behavior makes us the laughing stock of law enforcement worldwide,” said the senior official. “These [passengers] were only guilty of buying a ticket.”‘
Much as I hate to be disagreeable with a favorable quote, when this “senior law enforcement official” calls the TSA “law enforcement,” he’s already blown the whole “laughing stock” point.
Did the TSA strip search their elderly victim?
For argument’s sake, let’s say we don’t have enough common sense to realize that Lenore Zimmerman has far, far more credibility than the habitually dishonest TSA employees. If we shrug aside the relative credibility of the two parties, then we’re still left with unlawful detention. When the TSA pervs forced the little old lady to join them in a “private room”, they crossed an important legal boundary. Given the number of witnesses and frequency with which the TSA has committed this crime against a near infinite number of other American travelers, we’d be doubly stupid if we failed to recognize that they committed unlawful detention, and did so under color of law. Given that they committed this crime, I don’t think it’s important that they may or may not have violated her 4th amendment rights and sexually assaulted her as well. Let’s just throw the book at them for the first offense.
If we can get these sociopathic perverted thieves to refrain from unlawfully detaining U.S. citizens, we’ll all be a great deal safer. While we particularly fear for our children and elderly, many adult men and women have reported feeling sexually violated by these “private room” encounters. The TSA claims they provide these “private” rooms as a “service” to the bashful, but most victims report that they had no desire to be cornered in isolation from public support by two or more uniformed sexual sadists. We need to put a stop to these unlawful detentions pronto.