What Happens If It Moves Before You Get To Grandmother's House?

In the first episode of third season of "Seinfeld," George Costanza's worst fear after a physical therapy massage by a masseur was that George thought "it moved" during the massage and George voiced doubts about his own sexual orientation. What happens during a TSA "pat-down" of a male passenger if "it moves"? No wonder House Speaker-designate ManTan Boner waived the "pat-down" while boarding a flight out of DC back to Ohio. If this is (fair & balanced) frottage, so be it.

[x TAP]
Why We Are Angry At The TSA
By Adam Serwer

Tag Cloud of the following article

airport americans amount analysis arabs attack attempted concerns conservatives courts created current demand deployed detect developing either explosives feel force going government happening hard idea indefinite legislators liberty machines measures muslims occur passenger-screening people political procedures scanners search security state strip submit technologies terrorist threat times tortured tsa underwear virtual

created at TagCrowd.com

The Transportation Security Agency's new airport passenger-screening procedures, which force airline passengers to submit to a full-body scan or an invasive frisk, is turning Dick Cheney’s biggest fans into latter-day Ben Franklins.

The conservative, torture-friendly Washington Times, declared that "a balance must be struck between reasonable security measures and the maintenance of a free society." Abu Ghraib was a fraternity prank, but getting frisked at the airport is a sign of, to quote the Times, "Big Sister's police state." Hatred of the TSA makes for strange bedfellows, with some conservatives now sounding like card-carrying members of the American Civil Liberties Union.

"We're giving Americans two unpalatable options now," says ACLU legislative counsel Chris Calabrese. "They can either submit to a virtual strip search or a very aggressive grope. We've never seen that before."

The TSA has taken some important steps to alleviate privacy concerns by putting the machine operator in a separate room and blurring the faces of people going through the machine. But it's not hard to understand why people don't like their options.

The amount of freedom Americans have handed over to their government in the years since the 9/11 attacks is difficult to convey. We've simply accepted the idea of the government secretly listening in on our phone calls and demanding private records from companies without warrants. Many shiver at the notion of trying suspected terrorists in civilian courts, and even at the idea of granting the accused legal representation. The last president of the United States brags openly about ordering people to be tortured, and the current one asserts the authority to kill American citizens he believes to be terrorists overseas.

But most of these measures are either invisible enough to put out of mind or occur outside of what most Americans can imagine happening to them. As long as it's just Muslims being tortured and foreigners being detained indefinitely, the price we pay to feel secure seems all too abstract. The TSA's new passenger-screening measures just happen to fall on the political and economic elites who can make their complaints heard. It's not happening to those scary Arabs anymore. It's happening to "us."

The Washington Times made this distinction clear in another editorial, attacking the administration for failing to properly single out Muslims instead of forcing all Americans into the choice between a virtual strip search and being groped. "TSA believes an 80-year-old grandmother deserves the same level of scrutiny at an airport terminal checkpoint as a 19-year-old male exchange student from Yemen," the Times complained. Racial profiling isn't statistically any more accurate than random checks, but the point is that these outrages upon personal dignity would be less outrageous if they were directed at people with Arabic last names.

But conservatives bear a lot of blame for their current predicament. This comprehensive assault on individual freedom didn't occur in a vacuum; it occurred because conservatives were successful in frightening Americans into choosing security over liberty every time the choice was before them, and because America's elected officials take being blamed for a terrorist attack more seriously than their oath to protect the Constitution. While the scanners have been in development for years, their deployment was rapidly accelerated in the aftermath of last year's attempted underwear bombing, as the TSA became even more concerned about the threat of nonmetallic objects. Conservatives must now face the Frankenstein they created by breathlessly hyping the threat of terrorism for political gain: A recent CBS poll found that 81 percent of Americans support the new machines.

As to whether the scanners actually make Americans safer, that's very uncertain. The TSA has been responsible for researching screening technologies since it was created in 2002, sometimes with poor results. Their first project, the Explosives Trace Portal, meant to detect small amounts of the material used in explosives, proved to be mostly useless, but only after the TSA had spent $30 million and had actually deployed some of them in the field.

The current scanners were being evaluated at a time when, according to a 2009 Government Accountability Office report, the TSA had neither implemented a cost-benefit analysis of its passenger-screening technologies nor established "performance measures that assess how deployed technologies have reduced or mitigated risk." As of today, the GAO says the TSA still hasn't done either, despite having deployed the scanners nationwide. A TSA spokesman defended the machines by saying it had done an analysis concluding that the machines offered an ability to detect nonmetallic threats that could "only otherwise be obtained by increasing manpower to conduct physical pat-down searches." However, a March GAO report found that it "remains unclear" whether the body scanners would have been able to detect the type of explosive that underwear bomber Umar Abdulmutallab attempted to employ. Once again, we've traded liberty for security without even having a good idea of how much security we're really getting.

The possibility of Americans being saved by some benevolent judicial activist aren't very high, because the courts have generally granted the government wide latitude when it comes to airport security measures. So if Americans want more effective and less invasive airport security procedures, they're going to have to do it the hard way and demand that their legislators actively work toward developing them.

As the holidays approach, conservatives livid over the new procedures might take a moment during the humiliating inconvenience of a virtual strip search or TSA grope session to think about what indefinite detention in an island prison or a week of forced sleep deprivation feels like. The peril of provoking mass panic every time an incompetent terrorist lights himself on fire might become more apparent. Ω

[Adam Serwer is a writing fellow at The American Prospect and a graduate of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. He also blogs at Jack and Jill Politics and has written for The Village Voice, The Washington Post, The Root, and the Daily News.]

Copyright © 2010 The American Prospect, Inc.

Get the Google Reader at no cost from Google. Click on this link to go on a tour of the Google Reader. If you read a lot of blogs, load Reader with your regular sites, then check them all on one page. The Reader's share function lets you publicize your favorite posts.


Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves by Neil Sapper is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Based on a work at sapper.blogspot.com. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available here.



Copyright © 2010 Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves