I find myself wondering whether the grope-tastic actions of the TSA constitutes an illegal search in violation of the 4th and 14th Amendment and leaves them open to be sued on that basis by passengers who feel that the current procedures are too intrusive.
The simple act of wanting to take an airplane does not make one a suspect, any more than just getting behind the wheel of a car means that police can automatically pull you over and make you take a sobriety test. I don’t see how just wanting to fly from NYC to LAX constitutes just cause for an intrusive device that effectively strips you naked on television for prying eyes. What happens the very first time that a TSA employee whose job it is to watch subjects passing through the denudeonator gets arrested for having–oh, I dunno–child pørņ on his home computer. How’s that going to go over with the public, I wonder?
And if you feel that a video strip-search is demeaning, your alternative is to receive the same kind of pat down that someone gets just before they’re handcuffed and told to lower their head so they don’t bang it on the cop car?
Millions of innocent air passengers are being treated like criminals every day. How is this not actionable?
PAD
• 
It IS ridiculous the extent to which the TSA is carrying these inspections, but as to whether it’s actionable or not…I don’t know. Using air travel isn’t a constituionally guarenteed right, much as driving isn’t a right, but a priviledge, as the old saw goes. How effective would it be to sue over the intrusive steps required to let you make use of a service that no one is obligated to provide you? The TSA could just say “If you don’t like it, take a train,” (though I’m sure they wouldn’t). I would imagine it would be more effective to just not travel by air and let the decline in business get the airlines to take it up with TSA.
Anybody who uses the “don’t like it, don’t fly” or “it’s not a right” arguments needs to go through these pat downs every single day before they get into their car. After all, driving isn’t a right, so you should just suck it up and ‘enjoy’ getting groped like the rest of us, right?
.
It’s theater of the worst kind: It doesn’t keep us safe, is isn’t keeping the bad guys from flying.
.
But then, who’s to say that this doesn’t extend to trains and buses and everybody’s front door if this is allowed to stand for airplanes? I’m not a fan of the slippery slope argument, but we saw this coming.
When possible, I am driving or taking the train from now on. I flat-out refuse to be subjected to these procedures. They’re demeaning and excessive. I will not be irradiated nor will I willingingly be groped by some stranger.
.
My wife and I already have 2 vacations planned and we’re taking the train both times. It’ll take longer to get there, but we know that we’ll not be manhandled along the way.
“Using air travel isn’t a constitutionally guaranteed right”
Yes but your 4th amendment protection against search and seizure without a warrant based on probable cause is a right guaranteed under the constitution. It doesn’t matter where you are – public or private property. We should be allowed to travel by any means we want without being treated like criminals.
Absolutely. You hit the nail on the head. Our rights are not based on the situation.
In addition, the TSA is already starting discussions about adding these procedures to trains, ships, buses.
@ kent – they’re more than just talking about it. If you have any friends that work for the government, ask them to recount job descriptions for TSA postings. They will be bringing dogs.
Coming to a school, train station, movie theater, public highway, sidewalk, etc. near you.
you have the common law right to travel. You require no real license..
.
Because the idiots of the last administration set things up to make useless, asinine garbage like this “legal” and defensible and the cowards in this administration won’t undue most of the useless, asinine garbage despite saying they would while trying to get elected.
Hi Jerry,
.
You’re right. I would suggest that the “Free Speech Zone” BS being abolished would be as good a place to start as any.
.
I’m not holding my breath. This is the same administration that just last month asked the SCOTUS to rule against a lower court that ruled that the Bush Administration and John Ashcroft’s claims of immunity for Ashcroft over Ashcroft’s abuses of power (specifically the al-Kidd case) were bunk and to have the SCOTUS support the notion that you can’t hold the powerful accountable even when they knowingly lie and abuse their authority.
.
Change you can believe in.
News flash, Jerry: Bush is out of office. Obama OWNS the administration, and has for about two years. And this policy is the decision of his hand-picked TSA administrator. So Obama owns this.
.
But let’s set aside your instinctive “blame Bush!” response. No, I don’t think it’s illegal. The argument is that air travel is not a right, and by entering the airport you’ve implicitly consented to submit to pretty much any security measures they dream up. And I think it passes legal muster.
.
That doesn’t mean I agree with it — just that I don’t think that the courts are the way to fight it. This was done by executive fiat. That means the two readiest ways to overturn it are to get the executive branch (that’s the Obama administration) to reverse itself, or get Congress to pass legislation ratcheting it down.
.
I’d rather it be the former, but Obama has shown no interest in the subject whatsoever. Apparently he has other concerns on his mind (I’m thinking his golf handicap). So it’s likely to continue for some time.
.
I’m a big fan of the old saying “it’s OK if they don’t see the light, as long as they feel the heat.” So let’s put the heat on the people who can actually change the policy — Obama and his hand-picked top people.
.
Whining about the Bush administration that’s been out of office for almost two years over new policies instituted in the past couple of weeks is pretty much political mášŧûrbáŧìøņ, Jerry — sure, it might feel good to you, but the rest of us who you share it with only feel embarrassed on your behalf.
.
J.
But let’s set aside your instinctive “blame Bush!” response.
.
No, let’s not. Bush forced through the creation of TSA a mere 2 months after 9/11.
.
Just like the Patriot Act, people like you haven’t given a dámņ about what the govt did under Bush, but now you have a fit with Obama in charge.
.
Obama has made some major mistakes, but your hand-washing of everything Bush did is pathetic.
Going into a grocery store is not a right. However, if you were groped at the door before being allowed in, you would file charges.
No agent of any US federal, state, or local government has the right to touch you in private areas unless you are under arrest, in custody, and there is a warrant for a strip search. Any touching of those areas through your clothing requires your consent.
I am not talking about general pat-downs. I am talking specifically about pat-downs that involve the touching and probing of private areas.
I hope everyone who is subjected to inappropriate pat-downs will strenously, BUT POLITELY, voice to the agent that s/he does not have your consent to touch you in private areas, that you are cooperating under duress, and that if s/he touches you in a private area, you will file charges against them.
Let the agent complete the procedure, immediately dial 911 and report assault. This only works well when you are departing from your home airport as you will need to appear in court to testify.
“I’m just doing my job,” is not a defense — as has been shown in numerous war crime trials where German Nazi soldiers claimed they herded people into cattle cars to be slaughtered because they were under orders to do so.
Stand up now! File assault charges when you or — worse yet — your child is inappropriately touched by anyone.
V
Well put, Jerry. I’m not sure what else needs be said.
Hi PAD,
.
I’m not going to act surprised by this. It’s just another Orwellian step toward turning America into a police state.
.
Personally I’d like to see a class action suit brought against the TSA, not to mention all the other violations of the constitution perpetrated on the public by government at all levels. You can see it quite often on YouTube. Police abuse, misconduct, and harassment are becoming the norm. Which is sad.
.
Face it. We all know how it will go down when a TSA agent gets caught doing something illegal (in addition to the already unreasonable search) in relation to his/her duties. They will be put on paid administrative leave while the rest of the agency works on damage control. There will noise made against this and that and everyone will behave properly concerned. For a while. Then a news story about Hilton, Lohan, Spears, or some other flavor-of-the-month celebrity will thoroughly distract most of us because our Constitutional Rights simply cannot compete with, say, a bøøb job.
.
How is this not actionable? Because matters involving government agencies are usually investigated from within and if or when a civilian review ever happens it’s usually peopled by those who have an interest in maintaining the status quo. It’s not about right and wrong at that point. It’s about justifying the agents actions with rules, regulations, and codes of conduct that sometimes conveniently leave out that which is obvious to most of us. Y’know, the part about being decent.
.
We have been told that the terrorists hate us for our freedom. I’m glad to see that every day there is less for them to hate us for (Irony).
Peter,
Why do you hate America?
—matt
“They who can give up essential liberty in order to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
.
Why did Ben Franklin hate America?
.
PAD
Hi again PAD,
.
Something interesting I’ve noticed in relation to this Ben Franklin quote over the last five to ten years.
.
Many local police departments are more often being referred to as, or fall under the umbrella of, the Department of Public Safety during a time when the risk of losing our liberties only increases.
.
True story. My brother is a security guard, sorry, Safety Officer at a local college. The department changed from Campus Security to The Campus Safety Office about the same time that the Safety Guards, as I call them, were required to purchase and carry firearms. Meanwhile the college did not perform any relevant background checks on personnel.
.
As you may have guessed he receives constant ribbing over this.
.
Tally Ho!
I don’t speak for Matthew, but I took his comment as sarcastic. As a Certified Fascist Knuckle-Dragging TeaBagging Right-Wing Blogger (tm pending), I’ve seen that line used a LOT by liberals to poke at conservatives who seem to think it’s kind of witty for some reason that escapes me. I think they believe they’re parodying some old right-wing talking point from years and years ago.
.
It never struck me as funny, and this certainly didn’t seem funny, but I didn’t see it as an attack on PAD — but a Colbert-style swipe at the right wing.
.
Stupid, but not an attack.
.
Or Matthew could just be an idiot.
.
J.
I don’t speak for Matthew, but I took his comment as sarcastic.
.
The IP he posted here with is new to this board, so when it comes to posters with whom I’m unfamiliar, I never assume.
.
PAD
Some TSA agents have already been arrested for child pørņ.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=912&bih=506&q=tsa+agent+child+pørņ&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
And what was the publics response?
Crickets.
.
John, the reason that the response was “crickets” was because that’s all that it was worth. I can point you to news articles about cops breaking the law, firemen engaged in acts of arson, doctors doing things ranging from minor abuses of their station to cutting off the wrong limbs, bus drivers being drunk drivers and a whole host of other offenses committed by various other members of various other professions. Other than being able to point at the specific bad apples in the bunch it doesn’t mean a whole hëll of a lot when talking about the professions as whole or the vast majority of people who do their jobs without screwing up, disobeying their regulations or breaking the law.
.
I would tend to think that “crickets” is the proper overall response here.
Well first, its important to note that the former TSA employee’s arrest for child pørņ was not related to their duties (with the caveat that I am worried about those who are so inclined looking for work in this area).
That said, first I assume you mean the 4th amendment, Peter? (The 14th is birthright citizenship if I recall)
Where it gets hairy is that TSA screeners are not, by statute, law enforcement officers. They cannot legally make an arrest, local LEO has to be called. They can only assess civil penalties (in an interesting side note, legally they cannot stop you from boarding a plane, they technically have to call a police officer to do it).
With that in mind, its questionable if the 4th amendment applies in full, since it technically addresses criminal matters. I suspect the TSA would also invoke the borders and points of entry exception, even if not directly on point.
Would be an interesting case, but certainly not a slam dunk. And if the TSA lost, its possible they could lose the right to search all luggage without a waiver, which would be a scary situation.
No, I meant the Fourteenth Amendment since it imposes the 4th Amendment upon the states and to law enforcement agents within the states, so I figured that’s what applied here since it varies from state to state. But I corrected it in the main posting for clarification lest anyone else get confused.
.
PAD
TSA operations are federally mandated, so I don’t think the 14th would apply. Interesting point of legal argument though.
My biggest beef with the airline industry right now is that I cannot bring more then 3 oz of liquid with me on a flight and that nail clips aren’t allowed, but at the same time we are routinely told that any electronic device could interfere with the landing or takeoff of the plane.
So I can’t have a pair of nail clippers but I can keep my iphone and crash the plane?
Years ago, way before 9/11, a reporter for the New York Times investigated why you would even be allowed to bring a Cell phone on a plane if there was the possibility of it causing the plane to crash. What he found was that no one in the airline industry believed that a cell phone or other electronics would cause any sort of interference, that was basically a lie being told to the public. He found that many of the flight crew personal regularly use cell phones during a flight, with no fear whatsoever, and no one had every been reprimanded for phone usage as long as they did it out of the view of passengers.
There were two actual reasons why they didn’t want you to use a cell phone, neither of which had anything to do with safety. The first was the airlines wanted you to use their pay with a credit card phones on the plane, for which the got a big profit. If you used your personal phone they lost money. The second was part of an agreement with the cell phone companies, apparently when you use a phone from that altitude it’s impossible for the cell phone carries to assess things like roaming charges, etc.
So the ban of cell phones and other electronic devices has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with money.
There is one element of safety. Most critical incidents occur on takeoff and landing (if you are at 30,000 feet you can either recover or well splat….).
In the event of a rapid deceleration, objects like phones, ipods, etc become projectiles. FAA even wanted to restrict books during those times, but the screaming was loud and strident.
That said, most modern devices will not interfere with airplane operations, there is a SMALL chance they could bleed into some communications frequencies.
I’m reminded of the first episode of The West Wing.
.
Toby gets a call while on a plane, and the flight attendant tells him to turn it off. He rattles off some specs of the plane which he states, “…just came off the assembly line 20 months ago. You’re telling me I can still flummox it with a phone I bought at Radio Shack?”
.
–Daryl
I don’t know how well a class action suit would hold up in court, but someone really should give it a try.
I read somewhere that there is a clause in the law that created the TSA that allows states to opt out. So everyone needs to lobby their own state to do so.
As I understand it, any airport can opt out of TSA screeners in favor of private security, but that the private companies must still adhere to all TSA guidelines, so what would be the point.
I took a look at some of the “TSA agents arrested for child pørņ” link, and while some was news, some seemed like right-wing conspiracy paranoia about a takeover of America by Stalinists and the like. I don’t think using a security scanner to scan a child counts as child pørņ any more than my brother and sis-in-law were distributing child pørņ through the mail when they mailed a card — announcing the christening of my nephew — with his near-naked photo on it. Stretching a job activity to become criminal will result in almost anyone unable to do their jobs. (I’m flashing back to the FAMILY GUY where Peter went in for a prostate exam and, not knowing what it was, sued his doctor for rape.)
I’m actually not against the full-body scans. The goal of airport security is to keep the passengers secure, and while “the simple act of wanting to take an airplane does not make one a suspect,” making sure no one has anything that could threaten the passengers (or take over the plane) is also a priority. To paraphrase the movie THE GHOST WRITER, if you had two airlines side by side, and one had everybody go through a full body scan or patdown before getting on, and the other just let people walk on through, which one would you want your kids to go on? I’d rather feel uncomfortable having gotten scanned than feel uncomfortable worrying that the person next to me might have snuck something on.
And, while I’m quoting movies, I’m reminded of THE SEVEN SAMURAI. After the samurai arrive, the peasants start worrying and panicking — who are these people? will they molest our women? why are they here? — but as soon as the alarm sounds, they start flocking around the samurai begging for protection. After 9/11 one of the first things that happened was a review of airline security, and wondering how this could have happened and why weren’t we doing more to prevent it. If these “grope-tastic” measures keep us secure and effectively prevent any threats to life, I say keep ’em. If they’re gotten rid of and something does happen as a result, that would be a tragedy — one that the current measures are in place to prevent, uncomfortable or not.
.
“If these “grope-tastic” measures keep us secure and effectively prevent any threats to life, I say keep ‘em. If they’re gotten rid of and something does happen as a result, that would be a tragedy — one that the current measures are in place to prevent, uncomfortable or not.”
.
And if we continue these marginally effective practices and something happens; then what? Strip searches? Body cavity searches? Hey, they would be there so that you could stop worrying that the person next to you might have snuck something on the plane and to keep us secure and effectively prevent any threats to life.
Body cavity searches?
.
People keep pointing out that it’s only a matter of time before a bomber shoves their bomb up their ášš.
.
And then what?
.
Not surprisingly, nobody who defends the groping and pørņø-scanners wants to answer that question.
For one, you’re doing an either/or proposition, and that’s not the case. There’s a balance between airline security, and extreme measures.
.
Second of all, if it’s all about saving lives, well, there were 17,000 people murdered in the US last year. A lot more than the total dead from every single plane hijacking ever. So it would seem to be that your logic would support video cameras in every room of every house, apartment, and business in america, and along all the streets, with random full body searches and car inspections. I mean, if it’s just about making us secure?
.
Maybe full body scans at schools too? Because once terrorists can’t hit planes, they’ll hit schools, or malls, or any place people gather. And how far do we go.
.
The number one protection from terrorist attacks is intelligence. If they’re at the airport trying to get on, it’s too late. I’d be interested in knowing how many terrorist attacks our security has actually prevented, as compared to what the CIA/FBI has prevented.
.
And gee, Israel somehow has had a problems, and they don’t do full body gropes and scan.
.
But the most dámņìņg arguement? There are only 40 airports in the US with full body scans/gropings. Yet amazingly, people are getting on and off of planes at hundreds of other airports, many of which connect to those 40, with no terrorist attacks. If it was so critical, you think they’d have them everywhere. The fact of the matter is, much like the shoes on the x-ray, it’s about a show, to make folks feel better, not about whats really effective.
“Maybe full body scans at schools too? Because once terrorists can’t hit planes, they’ll hit schools, or malls, or any place people gather. And how far do we go.”
Tell me one instance in the history of the world where the slippery slope theory has held up. At some point there is always a correction. Economists have rejected the slippery slope theorem for years, why can’t bloggers or anybody that talks about politics catch on.
Preying on fear is not a rational response to political argument, but unfortunately it seems to be the most common employed by both sides of the political spectrum.
Preying on fear is not a rational response to political argument
.
And yet, that is exactly what the TSA is doing.
.
Don’t want to get blown up by a terrorist? Submit to whatever we want. Don’t want to see a delay for everybody else the airport? Don’t opt out of our theatrics.
.
Pistole has already said he wants to take TSA to “the next level”. Napolitano Monday night said she wants to see the scanners expanded to subways and other areas.
.
It’s hard to stay off the slope when these are the government officials who are already dismissing all the concerns about this stuff in the first place, and then they immediately ratchet up the rhetoric themselves.
I’m not against the full-body scans in principle; the big problem I have there is that I have little to no confidence that they’ll get the dosages right. You read enough stories about *hospital* radiation treatments going haywire due to user error that I am not at all inclined to believe that the TSA will do a better job.
.
And I agree with Jerry (Chandler) about your last two sentences; the statement “if it helps keep us secure, keep it” is opening the floodgates to anything and everything.
.
TWL
These “grope-tastic” measures do not keep us secure – unless they were to do it to every single passenger. Singling out persons with knee replacements, artificial limbs, etc. and an occassional spot check does nothing to assure passengers that they’ve “caught” any terrorist getting on the plane. Anyone who doesn’t get “the grope” is a potential terrorist, and if one person has to go through it then every passenger should have to go through it. There are conflicting rumors on the pass through screeners as to whether they are dangerous so I’m not sure it’s worth going through one of those and taking TSA’s word that they are safe – and besides, the one time I did, they still did the “groping” test afterwards (I have a knee replacement). Their explanation was that “we saw something”! Duh! Anyway, if they were forced to grope everyone then they would change the policy immediately and find some other way to deal with the security as the airlines would be so clogged with long lines that they couldn’t function. These procedures now do not assure that there are no terrorists getting through. The terrorists aren’t the ones getting groped – they’re sitting back laughing at the gullability of the American people. I’ve traveled to England recently and went through their screening process and didn’t get groped. Here in America (the land of the Free) I get TSA’s jollies everytime I fly – which will be never again until they find some other way of screening passengers – or make everyone go through what I go through every time I fly simply because I have a knee replacement implant.
“ny more than just getting behind the wheel of a car means that police can automatically pull you over and make you take a sobriety test” Don’t look now, but this is exactly the kind of legislation MADD is trying to get passed. At least up here. I’d be surprised if they weren’t trying to get it done down there, too.
“The simple act of wanting to take an airplane does not make one a suspect, any more than just getting behind the wheel of a car means that police can automatically pull you over and make you take a sobriety test.”
.
Uhm… DUI checkpoints during the holidays and on random weekends in the summer anyone?
DUI checkpoints are allowed as long as they are reasonable and objective. There has to be just cause for them to pull you over, even at a checkpoint, and subject you to scrutiny. Between the intrusiveness of the searches and the profiling that is hardly objective, it’s not the same thing.
.
PAD
.
Trust me, I know the rules and regs for a checkpoint. But the fact is that there are certain things that they have in common with the TSA stuff essentially netting everybody.
.
A lot of checkpoints are set up on roads where you don’t see the checkpoint until it’s too late to turn around. You can be sober as can be and you’re being held up on your ride home (or wherever) along with everyone else. When you finally get to the front of the line you get to chat with an officer or two who are looking for signs of drugs and alcohol. That’s not a perfect science and I’ve seen guys direct people to the check area to get the whole treatment because the drivers glazed look and slow responses to questions made them suspect certain recreational drugs and not, as has sometimes been the case, getting off of a 16 hour shift or getting off work from a second job. I’ve seen guys get pulled over because the car reeks of booze… because the passengers were drunk and the guy driving was the designated driver.
.
And that still doesn’t change the fact that the net catches everybody at least for a little while.
.
I’ve been snagged in them a few times this year. The good times were when I was leaving work and still in uniform myself or I was just out and about but the first officer to see me knew me from training courses or was a friend of mine and knew I didn’t drink. Nights like that I was only held up on my way home for five to ten minutes. I got hung up for about a half an hour earlier this year in one stop out of town. Huge number of cars waiting in line. Not a fun thin when I had been driving for an hour and still had another hour and a half to go before getting home.
.
The checkpoints do kinda net everyone and they sometimes do pull people who haven’t done anything wrong and make them dance the dance.
Again, Jerry, I’m talking reasonable. Not to mention very specific: The big difference is that if you’re exhibiting no signs of being under the influence, they can’t decide to strip search you. There has to be just cause. The TSA authority is seemingly limitless. There doesn’t seem to be any sort of checks and balances system in place, whereas a random check point for drunk drivers operates under specific rules.
.
PAD
.
“The big difference is that if you’re exhibiting no signs of being under the influence, they can’t decide to strip search you.”
.
Actually, we can’t strip you even if you are showing signs of being under the influence. We only do that kind of thing off duty, if you’re really cute and you come back to our place with us.
The sheer tone deafness from some of the people involved is breathtaking. I’m now used to politicians and the like treating regular people like the ignorant peons they take us for but still…
.
One idiot calls them “love pats”. The TSA says they ain’t changing a thing, as the lines grow ever longer and disabled people are left with urine running down their legs after agents ignore their pleas. After a contentious election we now have something that about 90% of liberals, conservatives and middle of the roaders agree on.
.
I’ve known some folks who worked as TSA agents. Some were decent folks, some were glorified bag checkers. I suspect a lot of the good ones are unhappy at being the face of government incompetence and over-reach right now.
.
My advice is to have those flip cams ready. My congressman just got bounced on account of a moment of stupidity caught on tape. Exposure is the best disinfectant.
My advice is to have those flip cams ready.
.
Except, in San Diego, a man was arrested and apparently will be charged with illegally recording TSA… even though such recordings are NOT illegal in the first place.
.
Sadly, this too was predicted. TSA will do whatever it takes to shut down the protesting and evidence of their crimes.
I wrote on the same topic on my own blog on Wednesday (it’s from a Canadian perspective but most of it is applicable to the US as well): http://saneinsanities.blogspot.com/2010/11/full-body-scanners-at-airport.html. If I had to summarize my blog post in one sentence, it would be that the scanners create an undue invasion of privacy and only create an illusion of privacy.
.
Since I wrote this I keep encountering bizarre stuff related to the TSA all over the place. In particular this video shows why even if you do feel the scans provide extra security, you still have to decide how much you want to trust the TSA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhkQoiaf7Uc. It’s really time to strt acting like a parent who’s had enough and start telling them, “No, you can’t do that.”
Actually, in most states, the cops can do just that (so long as they do it to everybody on that stretch of road at that time), and if you refuse, you can quite likely lose your license automatically (under “implied consent” laws).
Could we PLEASE stay focused on the idea of UNREASONABLE search?
.
PAD
There are really 2 issues here…
1> The effectiveness of the measures in questions. Yes, there is some utility to the scanners, the issues there are more of safety and speed. And, speaking from having used to work in prisons, etc, a properly performed pat down is very effective. Which brings me to #2
2> Implementation of these. Three parts to this, one, the lack of behavioral detection to identify useful targets, two, lack of consistent and effective screening policies, and three, crappy training (apparently some agents were trained ON-LINE). These are the issues that really need to be addressed, not just with regards to these, and I am not sure a suit would fix this particular dysfunction
Effectiveness? Try this little item which ran in papers here about eight months ago.
[[Boasting he could easily slip through one of Canada’s new full-body scanners with enough explosives to blow up a jumbo jet, a leading Israeli airport security expert says the federal government has wasted millions of dollars to install “useless” imaging machines at airports across the country.
“I don’t know why everybody is running to buy these expensive and useless machines. I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747,” Rafi Sela told parliamentarians probing the state of aviation safety in Canada on Thursday.
“That’s why we haven’t put them in our airport.”
Sela, former chief security officer at the Israel Airport Authority and a 30-year veteran in airport security and defence technology, helped design the security apparatus at Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion International Airport. He spoke to MPs on the House of Commons transport committee via video conference from Kfar Vradim, Israel.]]
If the Israelis aren’t THE experts in airport security (and when was the last time one of their aircraft was hijacked?) who is? So, of course, our government ignored him and are still installing the silly things.
That was actually my point, that the scanners are of limited utility, and a ‘properly’ performed pat down and secondary screening can be of much more use.
The issue is that passengers are not being properly selected and the right training has not occurred.
I think they should institute the following policy:
Every day at a random time, they round up 20% of the people in the airport including employees, staff, managers, passengers, etc, and execute them on the spot.
This will be the ultimate terrorist deterrent. If a terrorist made it through this system, just increase the percentage executed until the “no terrorist” goal is achieved.
A side benefit will be that all those business travelers getting executed will help ease the nation’s unemployment rate as companies work to fill those positions.
Bruce Schneier, a well-respected security expert who coined the term “security theatre”, has signed on to a lawsuit:
http://epic.org/privacy/body_scanners/epic_v_dhs_suspension_of_body.html#lawsuit
Peter David: Is a Class Action Suit Against the TSA Possible?
Luigi Novi: Peter, in our litigious society, you can find an ambulance chaser who’ll say that a ham sandwich is actionable.
.
So I have to believe that a practice with such obvious privacy and legal concerns has to be.
While I agree with the general consensus here about the foolishness being perpetrated by the TSA, I feel compelled to point out that much of my sympathy is directed toward their employees, whom I have generally found to be hard-working people doing an increasingly thankless job. As much as I have grown to loathe air travel–a result of these draconian security procedures–I have found the TSA agents I have come into contact with to be almost uniformly courteous and competent.
.
I was submitted to one of these humiliating pat-downs some years ago as a result of my own stupidity. Returning from a business trip to Burbank, I was stopped at the security checkpoint in John Wayne airport for setting off the metal detector multiple times. I had merely overlooked a metal item in one of the many pockets of my (fully-stocked) cargo pants, and although the item was quickly found, I had to unzip and open my pants to the point that I was basically standing there in my underwear while a TSA agent explained to me how he would use the back of his hand while patting down my “sensitive parts”. As awful as the experience was for me, I could tell it was nearly as unpleasant for him, and he was extremely professional throughout.
.
I’m rambling, but my point is, I’m concerned that the employees on the front line are the ones who are going to take most of the heat for this, when (in my opinion) they’re being victimized nearly as much as the travelers.
I have found the TSA agents I have come into contact with to be almost uniformly courteous and competent.
.
I should introduce you to the one who, when I presented my passport, insisted on seeing a “government form of ID, such as a driver’s license.” I looked at her incredulously and said, “This is a PASSPORT; it IS a government form of ID. It is THE government form of ID.” And she still insisted that it wasn’t what she needed to see. Then the supervisor came over and demanded sternly to know what’s going on. She said to him angrily, “He’s refusing to show me a driver’s license.” I held up my passport. He looked at it, looked at me, looked at her, said, “This is a passport.” She said, “I’m supposed to ask to see a driver’s license.” The supervisor told her to “wait over there” and apologized to me for the delay.
.
“Almost” indeed. It’s the almosts that drive you nuts.
.
PAD
And then there’s me, who got through security with a Sam’s Club credit card this past August, after having lost my ID while getting changed in a store bathroom earlier in the trip…
.
KCI had just gotten those full-body scanners, and they had a bunch of TSA agents constantly saying “Empty your pockets! Remove your belts! These scanners *will* find everything!” And then subjecting EVERYONE to a pat-down afterwards. I’m not quite sure why, if the scanners were detecting everything…
.
The thing that kills me is, anybody who’s going to try anything isn’t going to fly out of NYC or Chicago or someplace like that. They’ll fly out of someplace small, and then look out at all the people coming into whatever major airport they’re connecting through and laugh their heads off at what they have to go through.
And the really sad part is, you’re lucky that the supervisor *was* “compentent.” If he had decided that “Sir, why don’t you just show us your driver’s licsence?” what would you have done? Just shown them your driver’s licsence or stood on princible that passport trumps driver licsence and risk being pulled off the flight and charged with something and fined out the wahzoo. Not to mention Rush Limbaugh: “This man refused to show the TSA his driver’s licsence. What has he got to hide? And this man writes Comics for our *children*!” I have enough faith left in the the system to believe you would ultinately win in court if that’s what it came to, but not before the damage (missed flight, bad publicity etc…) was done.
And to all those who arguethat these procedures are keeping us safer, I would like to remind you that the current enhanced security proedures would not have caught or stopped either the the shoe bomber or the underware bomber. It reminds me of the guy I met in the middle of the Arizona dessert one time with a bananna in his ear. “Why do you have a bananna in your ear?” I asked. “To prevent shark attacks.” he replied. “There are no sharks in Arizona.” I said. “See how well it’s working.” he said with a grin.
Worse for the passenger when they’re made to realize there’s no point, given the other gaping holes and all.
.
Case in point: a few years back I was going through O’Hëll … er, O’Hare and had to stand there for some time as not just one, but two security staff kept passing a portable magnatometer all over me to find that subtly hidden piece of metal the big one insisted I had on me, in spite of my having obviously emptied out pockets and the like.
All the while a guard stood nearby, nervously fingering his automatic weapon. Yeah, great way to make a visitor feel welcome. Eventually I was allowed to go on, picking up my carry-on backpack, which they’d submitted to all the tests and scans, as I did.
.
The ironic part is that, once I’d gotten home and started to unpack, the first thing I saw atop the rest of the stuff in said backpack were some disposable razor blades – the kind some hotels give to clients – which I’d meant to throw out before heading home, but forgot to do in my last day rush.
.
So, they nearly declare an alert because of a false positive due to defective equipment or operator, but then fail to spot the exact sort of thing those fancy full-colour three-D x-ray baggage scanners are supposed to be there to catch.
.
Remind me again why we put up with that crap?
Case in point: a few years back I was going through O’Hëll … er, O’Hare and had to stand there for some time as not just one, but two security staff kept passing a portable magnatometer all over me to find that subtly hidden piece of metal the big one insisted I had on me, in spite of my having obviously emptied out pockets and the like.
.
O’Hare was where they had the metal detectors so amped up that it went nuts because I had a Nestle’s Crunch bar in my pocket (because of the tin foil). I said, “What are you, the calorie police now?” And that was pre-9/11.
.
PAD
I understand New Jersey actually is challenging the TSA.
New Jersey challenges everyone. Seriously, have you been there?
Matt,
“Peter,
Why do you hate America?
—matt”
.
As someone who has disagreed – vehemently – with PAD over the years, let me just say this statement, especially if it’s based on this topic – even Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity have a problem with these searches – reveals you to be a friggin’ áššhølë.
Have a nice day, now.
Of course Beck and Hannity will be among the FIRST to scream if even a single “terrorist” makes it through any security screenings, even if the terrorist fails. (Let there be a terrorist who actually succeeds, and we’ll have a case where the right-wing noise machine is racing to see who can win the game of “pin the tail on the Democrats and Obama.”)
If there is a successful attack DESPITE the fact that we are all treated as criminals, I suspect there will be a lot of people angry about it, not just conservative talkers. A policy that is both intrusive AND useless deserves screaming, doesn’t it?
.
You know, I thought Matt’s “Why do you hate America” bit was just comedy, playing on the perception that anyone who opposes any anti-terrorist measure is on the side of the terrorist. Kind of like the “If we ___________ the terrorists win” joke. Hard to believe anyone would be serious saying that.
If there is a successful attack DESPITE the fact that we are all treated as criminals, I suspect there will be a lot of people angry about it, not just conservative talkers.
.
There likely will be. While they’re busy humiliating passengers, some bomb can cruise through into cargo. Or they’ll blow up a train. Or a bus. But I’m sure the conservative talkers all line up behind Obama and say we have to support the president just as they did when they said we needed to line up behind W. after 9/11.
.
As for Matt, if he clarifies and says he was going for comedy, I promise I will smile wryly.
.
PAD
“The simple act of wanting to take an airplane does not make one a suspect, any more than just getting behind the wheel of a car means that police can automatically pull you over and make you take a sobriety test.”
.
“Actually, in most states, the cops can do just that (so long as they do it to everybody on that stretch of road at that time), and if you refuse, you can quite likely lose your license automatically (under “implied consent” laws).”
.
Actually, Mike is correct here. Cops can basically ask anyone behind the wheel of a car to take a sobriety test for any reason as long as they say they feel there is cause, which is pretty dámņ broad.
.
I’ll never forget I was two blocks from home in front of a pub. I had just had a couple sodas there to talk to a friend of mine who was bar tending there at the time. before I drove home, I wanted a couple minutes to decompress so I read a couple articles in the newspaper next to me on the passenger seat. A cop asked me what I was doing – because of course no one he comes across ever reads – and was told I was obviously sleeping in the car.
.
Did I have my key in the ignition? No.
Was I slurring my words? No.
Did i smell of alcohol? No.
Was there any alcohol in the car? No.
they made me take a sobriety test anyway. And al I was thinking was, “I hope I don’t lose my balance or they’re going to take me into the station 16 miles away for no reason”
.
Good thing my foot wasn’t asleep or something.
I passed the test with flying colors but it still irritates me to a great degree that I had to take it in the first place, on a public street in my hometown when I had done nothing wrong.
I would think a drunk sleeping in a car would be something we would want to encourage, given the alternative.
I believe the ridiculously broad law has it that if someone is in the front seat of the car, they’re deemed to be “in control of a motor vehicle” regardless of whether the key is in the ignition. As such they’re then liable. I believe they’ve nailed pre-teens, whose feet couldn’t even reach the pedals, using that definition.
I was going to suggest that every time a TSA agent puts a hand in someone’s crotch, they should pee on his hand. But then I recalled reading that they wear gloves. Those bášŧárdš think of everything.
Plus in the video link I posted above a woman was basically assaulted for having eye drop fluid in her carry-on bag, so you have to be real careful with anyone fluid related.
More seriously I found a link to the article that StarWolf mentions above, re: the Israeli security expert: http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Full+body+scanners+waste+money+Israeli+expert+says/2941610/story.html.
I meant any*thing* in my joke above, but I suppose it’s appropriate Freudian slip since it’s only a matter of time before the TSA starts expressing concerns about the amount of fluid in the human body
Ive boarded dozens of planes in ten different countries, some of them what most people consider to be “Third world countries”. I have traveled through Eastern Europe just a few years after the fall of communism and I have even been pat searched a couple of times. And nowhere have I felt so intimidated and frowned upon, so rudely treated than at north american airports.
.
And the security measures, invasive as they might feel, were more-or-less the same averywhere. The conduct of US border and TSA perssonel was allways harsher and more aggresive than any other Ive encountered. Last time I landed in Newark I had the chance to peek at the motivational poster those federal agencies issue and the level of egotism and bravado they promote would have been too far fetched even for parody.
.
From these experiences (and some others I had as teen in LA) Ive grown to believe (correct me if you think I am wrong) americans have given their law enforcement agents an unhealthy level of uncontested authority.
El Hombre Malo: “From these experiences (and some others I had as teen in LA) Ive grown to believe (correct me if you think I am wrong) americans have given their law enforcement agents an unhealthy level of uncontested authority.”
.
I believe you are right.
.
The Police used be about keeping the peace. Now it seems they are simply used to generate revenue for the state. This was confirmed in my locale by a co-worker of mine who is a friend of the local sheriff. The sheriff told him as much.
.
Many of them also seem to display an attitude that appears to have an undercurrent of either self-satisfaction or self-aggrandizement. Some events even have me wondering if such attitudes are a result of their training and even encouraged. Add the “blue wall of silence” (the unwritten rule that one cop won’t rat out another) and that if you want to fill out a complaint against an officer you will likely be either harassed or intimidated, sometimes physically, by one of their own and you have a recipe for an “us vs. them” mentality.
.
Which brings me to the Fourth Amendment. Taking into account the attitudes and institutionally accepted behaviors above is it at all surprising when a cop justifies his actions by saying that someone was acting suspiciously after refusing to allow a search of their car without probable cause?
.
I’ve observed many of the above first hand and I have seen video of all of the above (I tend to discount edited video by the way). In fact the videos often show these attitudes taken to the extreme. Extreme actions taken by people who have sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution. In an ironic twist we are told that these people are heroes.
.
So I have to wonder if anyone in the TSA is required to take an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution as employees of the federal government. I also wonder if anyone who takes the oath even bothers to read the Constitution first.
Isn’t it fun when you realize you forgot something 0.03 nanoseconds after clicking the “Submit Comment” button?
.
I neglected to mention that while they do have an unhealthy level of authority it does not go entirely uncontested. There are citizen groups armed with video cameras that let the police know they are being observed. Many local groups are part of a much larger group called Copwatch.
.
It’s a good concept, though I sometimes think that those behind the cameras don’t conduct themselves all to well.
.
Cheerio!
It’s am important point to note that TSA agents are NOT law enforcement. They have no powers of arrest or detention and can only level civil penalties.
Local LEOs must be called in for arrests, etc.
Too right. One time visiting Japan, post 2001, ladyfriend decided we’d really visit and we wound up on a grand tour, from Hokkaido down to Kyushu. Went through no less than FIVE airports in that country. Interesting (or depressing) thing, I was treated far more efficiently, pleasantly, politely in all of them than in any in my own country or down in the U.S. What’s wrong with that picture? And, yes, they too know from terrorist actions, including a plane takeover by the Japanese Red Army back in the 70s. They just haven’t gone berzerk overreacting to it all.
re: airport security and Israel
.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/what-can-israel-teach-the-u-s-about-airport-security/
.
http://pajamasmedia.com/michaeltotten/2010/11/19/forget-the-pørņ-machines/
.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/totten/208802
.
(All by a moderate right wing American journalist)
.
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744199–the-israelification-of-airports-high-security-little-bother
(It’s about the same Rafi Sela as in the Canadian article posted by Starwolf.)
.
As far as I can tell, based on the articles above and my general knowledge, the Israeli system works by having security personnel ask routine questions from everybody and see your responses. They are less interested with the actual questions as much as your behavior. They don’t care about shoes or liquids. The luggage and carry-ons go through X-rays. However, Israelis know that they have to come to the airport 2 hours before in order to go through the screening.
.
The downside is that Palestinian-Israelis (i.e. Israeli citizens) allegedly tend to go through a harassing full luggage and (I think) body search. Also, every once in a while there’s a story in the paper about some visiting academic or dignitary that was (allegedly) harassed by airport security. I don’t know if they tend to be suspicious of all visiting non-Jews, or just some, or how bad it is or whether they are exceptionally impolite. But it is embarrassing to read about it in the paper. A few years ago there was talk of getting machines that would reduce the harassment of Arab citizens — these might be the same body scanning machines people are now complaining about. I don’t know if they got them or not.
.
Recently on a flight from Barcelona to Israel the security guard (of the Israeli airline) went over the luggage with a swab of some sort and then inserted it into a machine. I think it was some sort of chemical analysis for explosives. It was very CSI.
.
Frankly, I think that Rafi Sela guy sounds arrogant and sells a rosy picture. However, it is true that we don’t have to take off our shoes, and I think they are OK with liquids, and we didn’t have a kidnapping or a bomb so far. It is true that Israelis trust airport security. Trust is very important, because that’s what terrorists want to destroy. However Israelis’ trust in the authorities has declined in recent years. I don’t know if Israelis are less patient or more patient than Americans. We have been opening our bags for security guards in any supermarket and movie theater for decades without much complaining, but on the other hand Israelis do complain a lot. I suppose it’s what you’d used to.
On the subject of Israeli airport security. My personal experience tells me they don’t treat all visiting non-Jews with suspicion. When I visited almost seven years ago, I received more hassles from the Canadian and US airports than I did in Tel Aviv. For the record, I stand six feet tall and have dishwater-blond hair and blue eyes. Though Portland, Vancouver and Toronto all thought I might be a terrorist and patted me down, no one thought I was Jewish.
That’s good to hear.
re: airport security and Israel
.
hxxp://pajamasmedia.com/blog/what-can-israel-teach-the-u-s-about-airport-security/
.
hxxp://pajamasmedia.com/michaeltotten/2010/11/19/forget-the-pørņ-machines/
.
hxxp://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/totten/208802
.
(All by a moderate right wing American journalist)
.
hxxp://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744199–the-israelification-of-airports-high-security-little-bother
(It’s about the same Rafi Sela as in the Canadian article posted by Starwolf.)
.
As far as I can tell, based on the articles above and my general knowledge, the Israeli system works by having security personnel ask routine questions from everybody and see your responses. They are less interested with the actual questions as much as your behavior. They don’t care about shoes or liquids. The luggage and carry-ons go through X-rays. However, Israelis know that they have to come to the airport 2 hours before in order to go through the screening.
.
The downside is that Palestinian-Israelis (i.e. Israeli citizens) allegedly tend to go through a harassing full luggage and (I think) body search. Also, every once in a while there’s a story in the paper about some visiting academic or dignitary that was (allegedly) harassed by airport security. I don’t know if they tend to be suspicious of all visiting non-Jews, or just some, or how bad it is or whether they are exceptionally impolite. But it is embarrassing to read about it in the paper. A few years ago there was talk of getting machines that would reduce the harassment of Arab citizens — these might be the same body scanning machines people are now complaining about. I don’t know if they got them or not.
.
Recently on a flight from Barcelona to Israel the security guard (of the Israeli airline) went over the luggage with a swab of some sort and then inserted it into a machine. I think it was some sort of chemical analysis for explosives. It was very CSI.
.
Frankly, I think that Rafi Sela guy sounds arrogant and sells a rosy picture. However, it is true that we don’t have to take off our shoes, and I think they are OK with liquids, and we didn’t have a kidnapping or a bomb so far. It is true that Israelis trust airport security. Trust is very important, because that’s what terrorists want to destroy. However Israelis’ trust in the authorities has declined in recent years. I don’t know if Israelis are less patient or more patient than Americans. We have been opening our bags for security guards in any supermarket and movie theater for decades without much complaining, but on the other hand Israelis do complain a lot. I suppose it’s what you’d used to.
Micha, it ain’t bragging if you can back it up. And Israel’s record for air safety is astonishing for any nation — let alone a nation literally surrounded by enemies who’ve made her destruction an explicit goal for over 60 years.
.
What they do works. You can’t argue with that.
.
J.
Actually a friend of mine who took his dad to England had the same experience on the way back.
His dad (a 90 year-old, who is a WWII veteran btw) was also subjected to a total pat down, search on the way TO England… whereas on the way back they answered reasonable questions.
As Lewis Black said (paraphrased) “Before 9-11 we had really really crappy security, now we just have crappy security.”
TAC
TSA Forces Cancer Survivor to Show Breast
ttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40278427/ns/travel-news
Didn’t the guy who threatened to sue the TSA Agent if he “touch(ed) (his) junk” get escorted out of the airport and threatened with a fine?
.
I’ve only been stopped at two DUI checkpoints. But, neither of them involved an officer connecting with my bathing suit area.
.
Theno
Thenodrin, it’s even better than that. He was told that if he left the airport without consenting to a search, he’d be fine 11K. Then he was introduced to the kind officers who were going to escort him out of the airport without searching him first.
.
Catch-22, anyone?
.
J.
I like the fact that he didn’t refuse a search. He simply refused to be groped. He was very specific in what body part he did not wish to be fondled.
.
So, this shows that you can submit to a search, and still be denied your flight.
.
Theno
Jay,
“News flash, Jerry: Bush is out of office. Obama OWNS the administration, and has for about two years. And this policy is the decision of his hand-picked TSA administrator. So Obama owns this.
.
But let’s set aside your instinctive “blame Bush!” response. No, I don’t think it’s illegal.”
.
Uh, newsflash, Jay. Jerry – unlike others here – does not have an “instinctive blame Bush” policy. if you would actually read his posts, he blames BOTH Bush and Obama. And he gives educated reasons for doing so.
I assumed Jay was simply demonstrating an instinctive blame Obama policy.
.
I wish I had taped the Daily Show segment where they went back through clips during Bush’s administration to see when the conservatives stopped blaming Clinton for things. If I remember correctly, it was the 6th year?
.
Theno
In this particular case, the policy is brand-new, and enacted by John Pistole, Obama’s hand-picked TSA director. Until someone comes up with a Bush-era memo that says “start groping people in fall 2010” that can’t be reversed or ignored, this one is on Obama.
.
Who has shown utter disinterest in the matter, content to let Pistole push it and take all the heat over it.
.
Oddly enough, Pistole wasn’t Obama’s first choice. Pistole followed Robert Harding’s nomination and withdrawal, who wanted to push for the Israeli model of air security. But then Harding had some ethics issues regarding some defense contracts…
.
J.
Who has shown utter disinterest in the matter, content to let Pistole push it and take all the heat over it.
.
I wish he would step up and shut it down. But he’s not going to, and we all know why: Because if he abolishes the Denudeinators and insists that the TSA stops treating passengers like criminals, then he immediately gets tagged as “soft on terroism.” And God forbid a bomb makes it through; he’ll be crucified.
.
PAD
I personally pledge to do no such thing, and will argue with anyone who does — as long as it’s replaced with something more likely to be effective than this abomination.
.
J.
Further, the existing procedures didn’t stop the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, the Times Square bomber, or the toner bombs. What “worked” each time were two things: we were lucky, and they were incompetent.
.
Those factors will only work for so long.
.
Israel’s philosophy is different: they don’t try to control what gets on the plane, but who gets on the plane. The terrorists have never used the same technique twice, but always (with two exceptions) have used the same methodology: terrorists on the plane with weapons.
.
I’d rather have a couple of innocents with Swiss Army knives on a plane than a couple of terrorists who will find something they can use as weapons.
.
J.
Seriously though, if it is true that Obama is simply afraid to do what is right because he will possibly be criticized for it…that’s a a pretty dámņìņg evaluation. We are only 2 years away from a presidential election and if the assessment of the president is that he is a coward who acts out of fear of what the opposition party will do there can be only one reason to consider voting for him–the republicans nominate someone worse.
.
Either way, it’s the Republicans who determine what happens. Who would have predicted this 2 years ago?
.
Well, I think this is a no brainer. Almost nobody likes the status quo and there is little to no evidence that it is making us safer. Obama can continue on this path–a sure loser–or change things and risk being blamed if something happens. Oh and if something happens while continuing the staus quo he gets blamed for both.
.
So…A-do nothing, no attacks, get blamed, lose.
.
B- change things, no attacks, win
.
C- change things, attacks, get blamed, lose
.
D- no change, get attacks, lose, bigtime.
.
Bi is the only winning option. Take it.
.
Note– while I am not a tingly feeling Obama swooner I freely admit he is probably smarter than I am. So I must be missing some critical element. Wonder what it is.
Obama is going to get crucified regardless, and this simply comes across as trying to limit one method by which it will happen.
.
I don’t want this to come across as blinding support for Obama, but I can’t help but wonder if he’s being shielded from the stories. I mean, it’s obvious that he doesn’t have to go through these scans himself, and therefore he isn’t really seeing with his own eyes what these scans and pat downs mean to others.
.
He’s a father. Can you imagine if he had to go through a commercial airport and some TSA agent went to give his over-12 year old daughters a pat down, and one of them starts yelling “Stop touching me!”? You think then that perhaps this nonsense would change pretty dámņ quickly?
I don’t want this to come across as blinding support for Obama, but I can’t help but wonder if he’s being shielded from the stories.
.
I don’t think speculating that the president is, in effect, a clueless puppet who is unaware of a story that is pretty much on everyone’s lips could possibly be thought of as blind support. Sounds more like something Rush Limbaugh would say.
.
For the record, he has commented on the issue. “President Barack Obama said Saturday that he understood people’s frustrations and told the TSA that there needs to be a constant refinement and “measure whether what we’re doing is the only way to assure the American people’s safety and you also have to think through are there less ways of doing it that are less intrusive.”
.
So if he does nothing it won’t be out of ignorance. Frankly, I will be mind boggled if something drastic is not done, this is a story that will keep producing ugly press and viral videos. Every politician will be asked about it and only the dumb ones will pull a Gloria Allred and joke about how they enjoyed getting felt up by strangers
For the record, he has commented on the issue.
.
Commenting is not the same as UNDERSTANDING the issue, and that’s one area where Obama falls terribly short with his comment.
.
By no means do I think Obama knows nothing of this. But that doesn’t mean he’s seen these videos for himself so he can see why, exactly, people are so pìššëd øff.
He’d have to be a fool. And even at his worst I’ve never thought him to be a fool.
I do agree that the new policy is being enacted under Obama’s watch, by his appointee. I, personally, believe it is a logical progression of the policies enacted since the formation of the TSA. But, yes, the buck on this particular issue lies with Obama.
.
I also fully agree with you that we Americans seem to be way more interested in objects than people, to the extent of objectifying people in our persuit of harmful objects.
.
I think that if we could keep harmful people from boarding planes, then it wouldn’t matter if we had nail clippers, bottles of Dasani, or even box cutters or personal side arms. If the person with the intent to cause harm isn’t there, then the harmful potential of objects is, IMHO, irrelevant.
.
I think that the liberals in this country who are more afraid of hurting someone’s feelings than in keeping people safe, are really hurting our ability to even think of much less enact truly meaningful security.
.
Theno
“He’s a father. Can you imagine if he had to go through a commercial airport and some TSA agent went to give his over-12 year old daughters a pat down, and one of them starts yelling “Stop touching me!”? You think then that perhaps this nonsense would change pretty dámņ quickly?”
I take it you’ve seen the footage of a reporter’s 3-year-old getting that exact treatment?
Nobody’s perfect, Bill.
.
I mean, I never thought I’d view McCain as a fool, but then he selected Palin as his VP (with little vetting) AND he made the comment about our economy being sound (when it had been on the way down for awhile).
I’ve long since given up on the idea of a politician ever even approaching perfection but you are proposing a president that is dangerously out of touch.
.
If someone wanted to give Obama cover on this a much better excuse would be that he is aware of Al Queda chatter that indicates a possible airline attack that would possibly justify much more aggressive passenger searches.
.
Of course it may be a bitter pill for the left to have to swallow, being forced to mutter that if the people in charge didn’t know what they were doing, well, they wouldn’t be in charge but it sure beats “the poor guy just doesn’t know what’s going on.” What, we have to wait for Joe Biden to tell him? God help us all.
What, we have to wait for Joe Biden to tell him? God help us all.
.
Speaking of, have you seen the video from Biden’s appearance on Larry King Live where he was asked and answered about TSA?
.
You don’t need one of those experts in reading body movements and facial expressions to tell that Biden didn’t believe a word of what he said.
Bill, I think you’re not being realistic in the evaluation of the possible outcomes. It would be more like this:
.
A)Do nothing, no attacks – No substantial gain or loss in popularity. What’s the percentage of Americans who regularly use airplanes? Inside this percentage, there’ll be always be people willing to sacrifice personal comfort for the illusion of safety.
.
B)Change things, no attack – Modest win. Again, depending on above percentage. I doubt that would be an earth-shattering win in popularity for Obama.
.
C)Change things, attack – Catastrophic loss. Forever known as the President that was too soft on terror and “invited” a new attack on American soil. Whole party blamed for being cowardly. Probably Republicans winning for the next 20 years.
.
D)No change, get attacks – Moderate to serious loss. Again, will be blamed as too soft on terror, but may at least say was doing all he could. Depending on how they can spin it, possible even to turn into a win, if manages to rally the nation anew against terror.
.
So, we have for “do nothing” a tie and a moderate-to-serious loss (and that one is debatable). While we have for “change things” a modest win and a catastrophic loss.
.
Do nothing is the best option, in realpolitik terms.
Rene, your analysis is well thought out. Though I don’t agree, I sure can’t dismiss the possibility you are correct.
.
A)Do nothing, no attacks – No substantial gain or loss in popularity. What’s the percentage of Americans who regularly use airplanes? Inside this percentage, there’ll be always be people willing to sacrifice personal comfort for the illusion of safety.
.
there were 769.6 million passengers in 2007. It’s harder to get a read on what percentage of people have flown–anywhere from 50 to 80% gets quoted. It’s a big number.
.
and they are likely to be from the more affluent, educated, voting section of the population, so there’s that.
.
But even a person who does not fly can be angry over stories about breast cancer survivors having their prosthesis taken out. This is becoming one of those perfect storm stories that takes on a life of it’s own. I do not see “Doing nothing” as a viable option–he would probably have to veto a law to do so and I would not be surprised to see it pass with majorities on both sides. That would also give him some cover.
.
I can say with no expectation of contradiction that a continual parade of grandma groping, kid abusing, disabled humiliating stories will drop Obama’s reputation and poll numbers into Pelosi territory. He WILL do something before then.
.
C)Change things, attack – Catastrophic loss. Forever known as the President that was too soft on terror and “invited” a new attack on American soil. Whole party blamed for being cowardly. Probably Republicans winning for the next 20 years.
.
Depends on the nature of the attack. I’ve been expecting for some time a switch to something other than the manned bomb plots, which have not done much of late. Stinger missiles, I say no more. Since virtually everyone agrees that these searches are fruitless and do no good other than make people feel better…and it is clear that they are NOT making people feel better…time for a re-evaluation.
.
I dunno, Bill.
.
The current state of affair is bad, and it’s certain to get worse, but it is not catastrophic. A potential future attack is by no means certain, but it is catastrophic.
.
And I’m sure there is a portion of the people that still is reasurred by the sense of security (by the way, I’d like to see some polls).
.
And yes, I am cynical enough to consider Obama as a guy not above to avoid taking a gamble that would surely benefit the country in the long run but would be extremely risky for his political future.
And I’m sure there is a portion of the people that still is reasurred by the sense of security (by the way, I’d like to see some polls).
.
There was a CBS poll – the date of which I’m not sure of – that said 80% supported the current security measures. I am unsure how ‘current’ the poll is referring to, seeing as the ‘love pats’ just started.
.
Regardless, I am seeing people elsewhere running with the “don’t like it, don’t fly”, “flying is a privilege”, and worse.
.
Worse? I saw one comment that amounted to “Whatever it takes”. As in, the full comment said that the government can take away and/or abuse whatever rights they want as long as we’re safe.
.
Meanwhile, the stories about how TSA is keeping us safe just get worse, and worse. Not to mention, it was pointed out today that back in July Pistole said he’d like to “take TSA to the next level”, and to include subways and Amtrak.
.
But hey, don’t like it, don’t fly/take the train, and before long, you’ll probably be able to add bus to the list, too.
So, change something that 80% of the country is okay with it AND run the risk that a future terrorist attack will utterly destroy him politically.
.
It would take major balls for a politician to do that. I don’t think Obama is that politician. I don’t think we even have politicians like that anymore.
I’m pretty sure 80% do not support the current TSA stuff. The 80% was just for the full body scans, not the pat downs. Evidence suggests that the opinion is shifting and shifting fast. A new ABC poll has a 17% drop in support for the scans in just 1 week and a majority believe the pat downs go too far.
.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/22/new-poll-suggests-shift-in-public-views-on-t-s-a-procedures/?partner=rss&emc=rss
.
I’d bet that a poll next week would show further erosion in support.
.
nate Silver’s opinion matches my own: “I would be surprised if the new procedures survived much past the New Year without significant modification.”
The latest poll from Zogby shows 61% now opposed to the new procedures. This is going down faster than Lindsey Lohan’s career.
As a snap judgment, the “flying is not a right, but a privilege” seems to make a little bit of sense, but this may be an error. I think the question is more complicated than that formulation. Are airline passengers granted (reluctantly) by the government permission to fly, or is air travel a private industry which is regulated by the federal government? One could argue whether it is the business of government to “grant privileges,” or whether government is simply obligated to recognize existing natural rights and no more. I tend toward the second position, but even if we grant the federal government much broader authority, How do we arrive at the extreme that it trumps free enterprise and private business? If such authority is implied in the federal authority to regulate interstate commerce, “commerce” is stretched so thin that it means nothing and everything: Treasury, HHS or Homeland Security would be authorized to prevent or control all travel, commerce and anything else one can imagine which crosses state (not just national) borders. Actually, the power grab in question goes even further: A flight from – say – Sacramento to Los Angeles would most certainly be subjected to TSA enforcement – crossing no more than county and municipal borders.
I do not wish to live in a totalitarian state. If I am merely fooling myself that I do not – No, I do not love America. None of us should feel allegiance to such an abomination.
By the way, the above is not a slam of PAD, so reading it will not endanger the reader’s orthodoxy.
Bad as it is, another thing that gets me is that you don’t have the option to enter airport security completely naked. They’d lock you up if you tried to prove you had nothing to hide like that.
Why stop there, though? Anyone that’s going to be viewing anyone passing through security should do everything to ensure the public is made as comfortable as possible with the procedure. What they see of you, you should be able to see of them, at all times when they are on duty. Just think of what it will save them in uniform costs and dry cleaning bills!
It’s a pity we could never get Bring No Clothing to Your Airport Day off the ground. It’s the sort of relentless ridiculing policy like this requires.
I agree, Bob. Now, we just need to put Hugh Heffner in charge of TSA human resources…
Oh, and back to the original question: no, I don’t think that there can be a class action suit against the TSA. For one, it’s clearly a federal area of responsibility — immigration, border security, interstate commerce. There are a LOT of Constitutional arguments to be made for that.
.
Second, there’s the doctrine of sovereign immunity — we can’t sue the government without their permission.
.
J.
Ruh-roh, Raggy, they messed with the wrong folks now: http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/tsa-responds-passenger-outrages-underwear-search-happen/story?id=12208932
.
An ABC News employee said she was subject to a “demeaning” search at Newark Liberty International Airport Sunday morning.
.
It’s one thing when it’s members of the great unwashed having their grandma parts touched, but now they have gone too far!
Can we all agree on one thing?
Elections have consequences.
This idea that “flying is not a right, therefore civil liberties don’t apply” is nonsense. You don’t lose your constitutional rights by taking an airplane trip. You can’t be forced to waive your rights simply because other forms of transportation are available. Since the nineteenth century, the courts have acknowledged that the use of trains and other forms of transit open to the public are subject to constitutional protections. Otherwise we’re little better than serfs. Maybe 45 years ago, you’d be telling Rosa Parks that riding a bus isn’t a right, so there’s no expectation of civil rights there.
The only reason that things like metal detectors are allowed is because courts have ruled that these practices meet the Fourth Amendment standard of reasonableness, NOT because of any claim that we waive our Fourth Amendment rights. This is not a carte blanche for the government to impose any sort of screening whatsoever.
It’s very sad that many Americans are willing to waive their rights even when they are not legally required to do so. How’s that for giving up without a fight?
Security is an illusion. Always has been. If someone is determined to hurt you, they will. And it will be in some way that you are not prepared for (obviously). It’s like we are saying to everyone to “expect the unexpected,” which is just nonsense rhetoric and doesn’t mean anything.
To answer the question posed in the blog, there are likely to be challenges to the TSA’s security procedures, although probably not in the class action context.
The lower courts have generally agreed that airport searches are reasonable so long as it is not more invasive than the threat is designed to prevent. The question for the courts to decide is whether these new scanners are more invasive than the threat they are trying to prevent. Seems unlikely that anyone is going to succeed on that standard. We have seen instances of people trying to blow up planes with devices that do not show up on metal dectors.
I’m sure that as a part of or as a contractor for Homeland Security (whichever TSA is), TSA is governmentally protected from being sued by individuals or groups under a class action. I would be surprised if they are not. An individual might be able to sue an individual agent who gropes too far, but the constitutional violations concept probably isn’t eligible to be dealt with in that way.
.
Okay, what have you all got against MSNBC news links? I’ve had two posts jam up in the filter in this thread and both were short with one link to an MSNBC News item. Just now I lost a very nice one pointing out that someone finally did it and the article was about a passenger who chose to strip-down rather than take the pat-down.
The most insane thing about that last article is that they insisted that he get dressed (after he stripped to his shorts) so they could pat him down. And when he wouldn’t, they arrested him.
.
I wonder what would have happened if he’d stripped naked. Nothing left to pat down there. I know some nudists who would have no problem with that.
.
PAD
I wonder what would have happened if he’d stripped naked.
.
This one comes close (warning: probable-NSFW pic since the woman in question is wearing sheer undergarments):
.
http://www.pixiq.com/article/sex-writer-strips-down-to-her-underwear
.
The woman is misidentified in the article itself, according to the comments. But the action stands: apparently TSA doesn’t like you coming through security in your skivvies, even though it means you’ve got far less to hide. Go figure.
I have every faith that the current TSA policy will be repealed for the simple reason that, since Obama is President, conservatives are finally free to rail against the government overreach that they successfully managed to ignore during the previous administration.
I don’t know where people get this idea that conservatives were okay with the TSA until Obama came. Many prominent conservatives were critical of it and National Review regularly ran articles critical of airport security and its invasiveness when Bush was president.
I’ll concede that some conservatives had an issue with the TSA during the Bush era, but most did not (or if they did, they kept their opinions to themselves).
.
For instance, Fox News and their personalities didn’t produce reports or programs highlighting such concerns (or if they did, it was minimal at best), and the Republican party as a whole certainly never expressed any misgivings about security taking precedence over liberty and privacy (and, in fact, derided those who expressed such concerns as being “soft on terror”, “not willing to do what it takes to protect the American people”, “having a pre-9/11 mindset”, etc.).
Conservatives and Republicans are not always the same thing. Conservatives tend to be Republican, but there is great hostility towards them in the Republican establishment. The fact the GOP didn’t make any official noises about the TSA is not a shock. When Clinton triangulated and acted more conservative in the mid-90’s, the DNC lined up behind him. The truth is that an incumbent president’s party will do very little to officially criticize a president.
.
As for Bush, his low poll numbers at the end of his presidency reflect that conservatives were disaffected with how he performed his job. I generally liked Bush, but I was vocal in my disapproval of his budgets, and many areas of domestic policy including TSA.
.
I’ve noticed that Democrats are much more likely to engage in internecine warfare and circular firing squads than Republicans. (Consider the current debate among Dems that the party’s current problem is that Obama is either too liberal or not liberal enough.)
.
I am glad that you are one of the few conservatives who realized early on that Bush was about as unconservative as they come. That said, I really wish that those disaffected conservatives had bothered to speak up earlier when it might have made a difference (and would, IMHO, not reflexively oppose Obama on everything, as a displaced reaction of what they ought to have done with Bush).
Hmm, it appears perhaps another attempt was made via cargo (which we scan far less of than passengers, btw). I find the last line to be the most important:
.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40339157/ns/us_news-security/
.
“Police said the evacuation was prompted by a K9 dog doing routine security picked up a suspicious scent at the airport, according to NBC News.”
You’re right Craig, cargo is way easier to use as a delivery system than the human torpedoes the terrorists have been depending on. The fact that they have not gone that route probably says something about the relative intelligence and imagination of the terrorists.
If Craig J. Ries is to be believed (It appears that he should be), the terrorists have “gone that route.” He was citing a news report, not offering a theory. It is disheartening, but not surprising, to learn that terrorists can avail themselves of common sense. There is something strange about people who prefer blowing themselves up to investing in a good quality sniper rifle or missile delivery system.
I don’t know about imagination, but yes, I think we’re finding out that intelligence – or a lack there of – is perhaps the only thing holding them back.
.
In the end, blowing up cargo planes doesn’t kill many people. Although, as we’re now seeing, they’re willing to give it a try since some cargo is carried aboard passenger planes.
.
In the end though, your comment about intelligence applies just as easily to our own government: we’re doing everything we can to make flying as painful, intrusive, and demeaning as possible for as many people as possible, rather than focusing on the methods that will actually catch terrorists before they get on a plane, like bomb-sniffing dogs and scanning all cargo.
.
It’s just fubar’ed.
.
Bill, they just did dry runs with the ink cartridge thing. They know what works, they may just not have preferred that method before because it’s much harder to get the desired effect with a human weapon than with a timer.
I think I typed my name wrong or something, as my comment got eaten by the webgrue.
.
At any rate, I had rambled on about how our government isn’t showing much more intelligence than the terrorists if this is their definition of keeping us safe when it does anything but.
It would lose.
Oh, there’s a chance it might win at some level, if you find a strict civil libertarian judge (or one who is a Fox News viewer, and thus has an overdeveloped sense of misplaced outrage), but it would be overturned on appeal.
It would hinge on “unreasonable.”
And in a nation where Total Information Awareness, the Patriot Act, torture of prisoners of war, Citizens United, and the hand-in-hand-in-pocket relationship between corporations and government pass with nary a whimper, such searches would be deemed “reasonable”.
(Bear in mind that this Supreme Court has already gone STRAIGHT against the Bill of Rights in its ruling that sex offenders who have served out their appointed sentences may STILL be held in prison indefinitely “to protect the community”–something my heart is whole–um, -heartedly for, but my brain knows is unconscionable.
Mind you, I believe that the Citizens United ruling was correct [if a horrible development], given all the legal precedents regarding money-as-speech; it just highlighted the need for corporations to be stripped of their legal “personhood” …)
By the way, to Craig J. Ries–my union (of which I am an elected official of my chapter) represents the Customs and Border Control people, and we’ve been fighting for years on their behalf to have MORE cargo checked; the current situation is terrible with regard to that, especially at our ports. (We’re also campaigning to be the sole representative for the TSA screeners, which would give them a voice in policy issues and improve the overall situation.)
I strip-search people for a living, I do patdowns all the time. Then again, I do them to criminals in my facility. That’s a subtle, yet important distinction from people trying to get through the TSA checkpoint. So with that said, straightaway I have a different view about patdowns and searches than most of you guys because that’s my profession, and you guys have your view, and both are reasonable in their own way.
Frankly, the best place to put most kinds of contraband is in the crotch, because most dudes don’t want to fondle another guy’s junk to search for stuff. I’ve found meth, weed, cellphones, all sorts of things an inmate isn’t supposed to have hiding discreetly underneath their nasty, sweaty sack.
If I was intent on bringing some kind of explosive aboard a plane, a little clump of SEMTEX underneath my testicles (as anxiety-inducing as that would be)would be the perfect place to put it. And judging from most people’s reactions from being patted down, I’d probably get away with it. I could scream and holler about being fondled, and if any litigation comes from these patdowns, most of these TSA workers will back down.
Now what disturbs me about this whole thing is that we, as Americans, don’t know what we want. If TSA just waves people through, and God forbid something happens, everyone, liberal and conservative alike will be screaming bloody murder abotu airport security. “WHY DIDN’T YOU GUYS CHECK US?”. If TSA cracks down, everyone screams that they are being treated like criminals. And with no major incident occurring, people begin to wonder why we have security in the first place. Security, an old lieutenant told me once, is never convienent.
However, there is security, and then there is harrassment. But where do you want the line drawn? And when that line is crossed, what sanctions against TSA employees are appropriate? When something happens, from either too loose of security measures or too stringent, who do we blame?
I don’t think we Americans really want airport security to actually screen us. We want the impression that they are screening us, that we’re safe, even though, as Peter points out, there are several other ways for the mean old terrorists to kill us all.
Where do you draw the line?
Where do you draw the line?
.
The line was drawn some time ago and TSA has already crossed it. The line starts when it becomes a violation of your civil rights and when everybody is treated like a criminal, rather than making a real effort made to find the actual criminals.
.
And you know what? TSA DID just wave people through yesterday simply for the sake being able to say that they ‘beat’ National Opt-Out Day. How’s that for security theater?
What’s your source on that, Craig?
.
PAD
There are basically no ‘real’ media sources for it because the ‘real’ media has already decided that Opt-Out Day was a failure since they didn’t get their train wreck of congested airports and angry passengers.
.
However, there is this article:
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/11/newark_liberty_airport_controv.html
.
Mostly, comments were made on Twitter yesterday and this morning, some of which were collected by Gizmodo:
http://gizmodo.com/5698536/fliers-claim-tsa-have-deactivated-body-scanners
.
.
How did TSA thump their chest over beating National Opt-Out Day?
.
http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/11/opt-out-turns-into-opt-in.html
.
Yep, that’s a government agency a lot more concerned with looking like the good guys than actually making us safe.
.
Included in that blog entry is a long list of articles from mostly dûmbášš media outlets failing to recognize that Opt-Out Day was in fact a huge success: people were not being scanned, and every media outlet brought awareness to the issue. Which is *exactly* what the National Opt-Out folks wanted.
.
To top off the propaganda, TSA included a photo with that blog entry. So let me get this straight: at some airports, people are being threatened with arrest for taking photographs or recording when it is NOT illegal. But hey, some kids holding up a sign praising TSA? Give ’em a medal!
The webgrue doesn’t like posts with several links, either. 😛
A follow up, since the media has finally decided it’s ok to do their job:
.
TSA doesn’t bother to tell you anything:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20024062-503544.html
.
Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight also had a blog entry on the TSA/DHS bs numbers about how few opt out.
.
Finally, if anybody thinks Napolitano and Pistole weren’t serious about spreading the TSA’s influence, the WeWontFly website has the link to a video of a local news story in Tampa showing TSA testing out ‘enhanced’ screening at a Greyhound station.
Nothing new. We’ve had ‘enhanced security; checks at Greyhound stations for a couple of years in Canada. The train people are very happy as people such as I skip taking the bus any more to get away from the annoyance.
Is the groping necessary? Wouldn’t it take just as much time and manpower to effectively interview someone that doesn’t pass the metal detector or imaging device? I have a friend who has a metal in his shoulder. They won’t listen. He went through a very intrusive, embarrassing groping session with the TSA. We need to look at alternatives for our older people with artificial knees, shoulders, etc. Just because you have metal in your body doesn’t make you a suspect. You need to be treated with dignity and respect. Interview them, for God’s sake!
Illegal search. By having me go through a full body scanner the TSA has violated my 4th amendment rights, and a Supreme Court decision for searches, as noted in Terry vs Ohio. Each person who drives to the airport are protected by these rights from unreasonalble search by police officers, so the TSA is not exempt to these same laws. If Police Officers across the country could do what the TSA does how many lawsuit would be produced in the court system.
Okay, Here’s the letter I wrote to TSA yesterday after a humiliating experience at Terminal 4 in Phoenix:
“I had a double mastectomy in April 2009 and have silicone gel implants. After going through a WBI scanner, I was told that the scan indicated ‘suspicious objects’ in my chest, and that I’d have to go through a pat down and explosive swipe. The TSA agent asked if I wanted it done in private, but I said no, for two reasons: first, my privacy was already tremendously invaded; and secondly, I wanted the people around me to see what TSA does to American citizens.
When I complained – calmly – to the officer in charge, a man with the last name of Cummings, he told me that intelligence is indicating female terrorists are putting things in their chests, similar to mine. I think this is absolute poppycock.
I travel frequently for business – government, in fact – and have never been anything but grateful to the patient TSA personnel, and always polite. My respect and gratitude evaporated today, and I am going to do everything I can to avoid airports, because that was insulting, embarassing, and stupid.
I imagine I am not the only person writing angry complaint letters. I expect that every single day, all over our country, TSA is harassing innocent American citizens in the name of security. This is because TSA doesn’t know what to look for, and hasn’t developed a better approach to screening and deterrence than increasingly invasive surveillance. What I experienced today was hypercautious incompetence at its worst.”
Here’s the response I got:
“Thank you for your e-mail concerning advanced imaging technology (AIT) screening for passengers with prosthetic devices and/or medical implants.
Prosthetic devices, medical implants, and other medical devices may appear as an anomaly on the AIT monitor. If an item results in an AIT anomaly, the individual will be referred for additional screening, including a patdown of the area(s) on the body that resulted in the anomaly. As always, all passengers have the right to request private screening any time during the screening process.
For additional information on AIT and the passenger screening process, please visit the TSA Web site at http://www.tsa.gov.
We hope this information is helpful.
TSA Contact Center.”
It’s not f*****g helpful, no. So I am now looking for a class action lawsuit that I can join.
I didn’t read all.. but when TSA leave piece of paper that says we removed items from your bag (no explanation of why, even though the items are proven to be compliant), and you go through the claim process and after submitting all the documents over and over.. and 12 week wait you get a response: Your claim has been denied (no explanation, why items are taken, why claim is rejected).. I think that’s totally messed up. They take what they feel like taking out of your bags.. that’s a bigger problem for me even bigger than ratial profiling..