"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." —Benjamin Franklin
I want to begin by saying I deeply love the United States, and the values
of freedom for which it stands. When I see threats to those fundamental
values I can't remain silent.
I've listed below the reasons why I feel the TSA has crossed the line with X-ray body scanners and groping pat-downs.
I absolutely support reasonable safety measures for air safety, however I feel strongly
that the TSA has simply gone too far, for no gain. The benefits of these
security measures over simpler ones are minimal and the harms are great.
I'll probably get put on some bad list for writing this — it
disturbs me that I should feel the need to worry about being punished for
criticizing the government — but then again I
got a lot of flack when I created the first Internet service provider and
a lot of insiders weren't happy that I was letting the public onto the net,
and still I forged ahead.
It was exactly for purposes such as this — freedom of speech — that
I did that, so I guess I sort of have a penchant for speaking my mind
and urging others to do likewise.
Perhaps it's genetic; as I write this the day before Thanksgiving,
I think back to my ancestors who
came over on the Mayflower seeking freedom and a better life and were
present at that first Thanksgiving. The sacrifices they made so that
we all could be here today are inspiring.
At any rate, I feel this is one of those cases where it's important to take a stand.
The more I read about the Israeli airport security system, which is
described as fast,
efficient, effective, and minimally intrusive, based largely on watching
for specific suspicious behaviors, the more disheartened I am at our
system. Ours appears to be based on "security theater," i.e.
pretend security — which has now crossed the line into sexual
assault and X-ray dosing. This is broken.
I've split my objections out by category; included responses to common justifications; and listed actions that I feel should be taken:
Radiation risk from defective machines — which is to say, Cancer
The radiation hazard from properly working machines is bad enough — the math says it will cause cancer in at least some people, possibly killing
more people in the long run than it actually ever saves.
But even worse is that these dosage numbers assume the machines are in perfect working order. As author
noted, they're purchased at lowest bid
and maintained by the lowest bidders. Even the best machines break down.
When these break down, they could be irradiating people unknowingly with
very high doses of radiation — certainly cancer causing, and
possibly even fatal.
Disease risk — agents do not change gloves from person to person
The agent runs his hands over sick peoples' entire bodies, and their
belongings, covered with germs for all sorts of diseases. Then he runs
his hands all over your body and belongings.
Stress is a
known cause of increased heart attacks and heart disease. The TSA admits
that the security procedure is stressful, and clearly such intimate
intrusions are obviously more more stressful to many people than previous procedures. To the extent that it is also
unnecessary then we may literally be killing people because of unnecessary
stress from the TSA. It may even be that the number of such deaths exceeds
the number of lives purportedly saved from the security. If the added
stress of this security is actually unnecessary, as noted in the points below,
then we are taking lives instead of saving lives.
Would be actionable child molestation, sexual assault, or at least sexual harassment in any other setting
This kind of inappropriate touching, in almost any other setting, would
be illegal, and for good reason. This one seems so obvious that it alone
should have prevented this policy from ever seeing the light of day.
Worse, it teaches children that such touching is acceptable
The government is an unavoidable role model for children and
others — and to
show that such intimate, forced touching by strangers is
acceptable teaches a horrific lesson.
We spend all kinds of effort teaching children to resist
inappropriate touching, and now the government completely
undermines that lesson by doing exactly what we say is wrong.
This could be a field day for a rise
in sexual molestation. What happens when we find children have
been assaulted because the government told them such touching was
okay, and the child molester tells them he needs to touch them,
because the government said it was good? Good God, people.
"I vas just followink orders" didn't excuse the Nazis
TSA employees are complicit if they go along with this policy.
We didn't let Nazi war criminals get off with the excuse "I was
just following orders" when they did what the Nazi government
told them to do. Wrong is wrong. Going along with evil makes ones
complicit in that evil.
Sets a Bad Precedent of "Guilty until proven Innocent" — treating everyone like criminals
Body scans and intrusive pat downs make the presumption that you
are guilty of something and must prove your innocence. When the
act of proving innocence is minor, people will probably not mind,
such as walking through a metal detector. But the fact remains
that you are having to prove your innocence. When this gets
extended to much more invasive proof requirements it ceases
to be something people don't mind, and that it remains an issue
that it runs contrary to "Innocent until proven guilty" then
becomes a serious matter.
This is invasive, and sets a
terrible precedent that invasive proof requirements are acceptable.
They are not.
May violate 4th amendment — illegal search and seizure
TSA's web site
"Such a warrantless search, also known as an administrative search, is valid under the Fourth Amendment if it is "no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, " confined in good faith to that purpose" [United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973)].
The Israeli's have proven methods that are less intrusive and intensive,
so this appears to violate the stated requirement. These are certainly
more intrusive and intensive than what was done in 1973.
Think of the hours of time spent in security lines, and what a tremendous
loss of people's time and productivity this represents. If it could be
done more rapidly — the Israeli system is cited as being very quick
— think what a benefit that would be to the economy. By having such
time-wasting procedures we are helping the terrorists win.
Will attract perverts to the job
Who would now want such a job? People who like touching small children sexually and touching other people inappropriately and from a position of domination and power. It seems certain that perverts will be applying for these jobs, which means people and their children will be getting touched by perverts.
American citizens should not have to undergo humiliating procedures to exercise their freedom to fly.
"It's the same as we do when people go to prison"
A colleague, who was actually defending these searches, said, "It's ok, it's the same as we do when people go to prison." Yeah, that's the point. We are not prisoners when we travel about the country.
Pat down ineffective against weapons concealed in body cavities
We've had the "shoe bomber" and the "underwear bomber" and each have resulted in intrusive checks of the related bodily area. When happens when we get the
"rectal-cavity bomber" attempt?
What's more, the X-ray body scanners have been said to be
ineffective against items concealed in body cavities.
We had an obvious, gaping hole in security via packages, yet we've had all the focus on people boarding planes — this implies it's only to make people feel safer, falsely, without providing actual security. When pretend security goes too far it ceases to be appropriate.
Either dogs or such bomb-scanning sensors, which operate at
a distance, are not only less intrusive, they're more effective.
Must be no true belief in the X-ray scanners
If you refuse an X-ray, then the pat down is explained, but if you then refuse the pat down, you are not allowed to go back to an X-ray. This implies the TSA feels the X-ray device is not sufficient.
European security officials pointed to a test of the body scanners earlier this year at Roissy-Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris, which concluded that scanners "are not a mature technology for now." —MSNBC, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40318044/ns/travel-news/
Inappropriate to the Kind and Size of the Threat
Existing incidents have not been on domestic flights but on internationally originating flights (and they aren't checked)
Underwear bomber: From Amsterdam intro Detroit
Shoe bomber: From Paris into Miami
International airports are not doing the body scanning and
groping pat downs, yet this is where the actual existing incidents have
originated from. What the US has been doing, minus body scans and
groping, has been effective so far.
Have there been any domestic airline bombing attempts in the last 10 years?
Serious question. If not, as I said above, what the US has
been doing so far has been working. Adding these intrusive
security measures have not been shown necessary or useful.
Not that large a threat
There are masses of people everywhere, every day and they aren't
blown up. If terrorists were actively trying to blow people up
on a regular basis, there are lots of obvious unprotected
targets for them, where there are crowds of people and no
groping, X-ray scanning:
- in the security lines themselves
- movie theaters
- football games
... The list is hugely long.
If there were such a huge threat, think of the easy chaos they
could create. That we don't have such bombings indicates there
are really not that many attempts. (And if there were, there would
be little we could do about it — we couldn't possibly protect
every place large numbers of people congregate with X-ray scanners
and groping agents; and we don't. That we focus so
much excess attention on airplanes is simply bizarre. That we now
have gone over the top with cancer-causing X-rays and sexually
assaulting pat downs turns "bizarre" into "reprehensible.")
Responses to Common Rebuttals
"We have to have 100% safety" — No, you can't and don't elsewhere
No, really, that's impossible; and the cost to provide it is too high.
You don't have 100% safety in your car:
You might get killed by a drunk driver.
You don't have 100% safety when eating:
You might eat a spoiled can of peas and die from salmonella or e-coli from an undercooked hamburger.
You don't have 100% safety in your home:
Your house might burn down from any number of causes, you might die from carbon monoxide from a cracked heat exchanger, etc.
You don't have 100% safety at work or school:
A disgruntled nutjob might go postal.
And so on.
100% safety is unachievable. The closer you try to get the closer you get to no freedoms. 100% Safety = 0% Freedom.
"You don't have to fly" is not a rational response
Many business people do have to fly, or lose their job.
Many people have family who live far away, and the only feasible
way to visit them is by air.
The only feasible way to reach many destinations for vacation is by air. To say that people don't have to fly to them is to say that people should not be allowed to go to them.
In the same amount of time there is no alternative way to cross the same distances — people have limited time.
The cost of alternatives is often much higher, making it unavailable to those with lesser means. (For example, driving 3000 miles across country @ $.50/mi IRS rate = $1500; times two for round trip: $3,000. Flying: $250.
And then there's the difficulty factor: Imagine trying to get from New York to Hawaii without flying. $800 roundtrip flying.
Imagine getting from Los Angeles to Berlin and back without flying — thousands of dollars and weeks of time compared to $800 and a few hours.
If it's even possible: There are no cruises to Europe from the US during many times of year, so no way to cross the ocean.
Considering cost, time, and non-existence of alternatives, there simply is no viable alternative to flying in many circumstances. Flying has become, in essence, a basic freedom and a necessity. To say otherwise is not a rational response.
"The terrorists are trying to kill us" — Yes, but they have easier ways to do it
We've undeniably had terrorists killing people, but the rate of
such attacks is extremely low, and if that was their entire goal
there are many other weaknesses that they're not exploiting (see
above). That suggests their actual goal is to tie us into knots
with absurd security protocols and make us give up our freedoms
needlessly. With these new security measures the terrorists are
Simple metal detectors and behavior analysis have proven in
Israel to be sufficient
to protect airlines at an acceptable level; while on the other hand,
these new measures do not offer 100% security, and are simply too
intrusive for the minimal extra security they offer.
Roll back security measures to non-invasive means.
The prior measures were bad enough, with the ridiculous removal
of shoes and convoluted rules on liquids — all of which already
began removing our freedoms. The Israeli system works and is
described as being much less intrusive. But groping innocent people,
especially children, is reprehensible.
Make this a topic of conversation. Urge others to act. Keep this
topic in the public eye until it's dealt with. Yes, it's that important.
Like this on facebook:
Until this policy is revoked, Obama, his wife and kids, all Congressmen, all TSA, and all Homeland Security employees, and their families, should have to have both a full pat-down and X-ray every time they travel to show their support
If they support it, they should not only have to suffer it, they should demonstrate it, publicly, as well as their families and children.
Every time they travel, to remind them of the abhorrence of these policies. If they think the policies are so wonderful, they shouldn't mind.
If they do object, then it's critical they be required to do so, as that serves the more important purpose of reminding them how repugnant it is.
Further, if they feel groping patdowns are acceptable to happen in public at the airport, they shouldn't mind theirs being shown on Youtube videos for everyone to see.
But undoubtedly Obama and they know this is inappropriate conduct and shouldn't happen, let alone publicly, so it seems certain they wouldn't offer up that video. Which only proves it is unacceptable.
Find security measures that are not only less invasive, but are
less intrusive and faster
The terrorists will keep winning until we do.
TSA employees should refuse/strike/quit
As noted above, TSA employees who carry out such evil policies
are complicit. To avoid their complicity, they should refuse to
perform the pat downs and X-ray scans, go on strike, or quit their
jobs. (And any who go along with it, they certainly shouldn't whine
about people being belligerent about it.)
TSA & Homeland Security heads should resign
This policy is so egregious and was so ill-conceived, a moment's thought should have scuttled these ideas.
That they didn't throw this idea out immediately means they are unfit for the job and should resign.
This is way over the line. It must stop immediately.
Let's all return to living in the land of the free, and the home of the brave.
Thanks for reading. Thanks for acting.
I welcome your comments below.
— Dr. Andrew Burt
You may copy this article, with attribution, for non-commercial purposes:
[Reposted from old comment system, from Heldentenor on Sat, 04 Dec 2010 00:30:14 0000]
Good article. I made many of the same points in the letter I've composed to John Pistole - but I can never send it because I'm afraid he'll place me on the "no-fly list" if I do. Because, of course, criticizing the government's policies is unpatriotic and will lead to further terrorist attacks. I understand TSA agents are instructed to threaten passengers with the no-fly list if they question any of the procedures.
I would like to believe that TSA agents get no more pleasure at looking at naked bodies and touching genitals than medical practitioners do. However, the average nurse, not to mention doctor, has far more education than the average TSA agent. We have had NO assurance from Mr. Pistole that sex offenders (I'm not too happy with Burt's term "perverts," but I understand his concern) are screened out of TSA hiring. And what about gay people? Right now the gropes are being performed by a TSA agent of the same sex as the passenger. Can a gay person request to be groped by a TSA agent of the opposite sex? I'm willing to bet that heterosexual male passengers wouldn't be comfortable with the grope if they knew the TSA agent was a gay male. Does the TSA screen gay people out when it hires? And if so, can we sue them for discriminatory hiring practices? That would be a sweet catch-22. The TSA must hire gays, and the passengers must consent to be patted down by gays. I can just imagine the uproar over that.
I I heartily agree that every government official should be compelled to submit to an x-ray or pat-down every time they fly. The sight of John Boehner bypassing the security lines tweaked my nipples (and not in a good way).
You haven't even addressed the many cases of passengers missing valuables out of their luggage because TSA agents are allowed to steal with impunity.
Meanwhile, I'm composing a list of ways to mess with the TSA. The guy who stripped to his Speedos at the Salt Lake City gave me the idea. (A TSA agent tried to stop him. Imagine someone who makes a career out of putting his hand down the pants of 10-year-old boys trying to tell us what is "decent!") For starters, I think we should all buy a copy of the Koran and put it on the top of our luggage so it's the first thing the TSA sees when they open it. Again, this is not a list I can publish, because of fear of retribution, but I'll certainly use them!
[Reposted from old comment system, from Aburt on Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:47:14 0000]
Thanks, good piece. "Even with children younger than 12, a screener will pass the back of his or her hand over the genital area. While few parents are comfortable with this..." --doesn't that say enough right there???
[Reposted from old comment system, from anonymous on Mon, 29 Nov 2010 02:53:23 0000]
Great article. It details all the reasons that this TSA policy is wrong. I agree with every point you put forward. This abhorrent policy of unwilling forced x-ray scanning or pat-down that is equivalent to being sexually molested should and must be stopped. TSA is out of control and should be disbanded. We survived without this gestapo-like agency before GW Bush was president and we can survive equally well without it now. I will never give up my constitutional rights either willingly or by silent subsevience.
[Reposted from old comment system, from kenny on Sun, 28 Nov 2010 21:59:59 0000]
Excellent piece! I'm discouraged that so few people seem to care about this erosion of our freedoms. Two additional items to add to your very thorough list:
1) The article "Who benefits over the TSA controversy?" from The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... neindustry Despite the title, this is not a typical conspiracy-theory driven article. It points out that: "conservative outrage at the TSA lays the groundwork for arguments in favor of privatizing airport security". On the other side, it points out that Democrats are beholden to lobbyist dollars: "the companies that supply the body-scanning machines have more than doubled their spending trying to convince the government to buy more of the machines." It concludes that any reform in Congress will not result in real change, because lawmakers fear appearing "soft on terror". Let's hope the courts will intervene.
2) "100% safety is unachievable." I disagree. I think you can achieve it if you go to an absurd extreme: all luggage and cargo flies on a separate plane, every passenger is stripped naked and sedated for the duration of the flight.
[Reposted from old comment system, from Andy on Wed, 24 Nov 2010 16:08:13 0000]
The other comment I have is that these terrorism incidents are almost certainly provocations by our own intelligence agencies in cooperation with those of other countries. The shoebomber and underwear bomber couldn't find their shoes or their underwear without the help of the FBI, the CIA, and so on.
[Reposted from old comment system, from Andy on Wed, 24 Nov 2010 15:34:27 0000]
Thank you for this excellent, well-thought out piece! I guess I have the honor of being the first person to like your facebook group, which I did earlier today. You've covered pretty much everything. I would only encourage people to bring back 9/11 truth into the mix, because 9/11 is always used to scare people into submitting to these degradations. Eugene Robinson did it in his latest article for the Washington Post.
If we expose and smash the ludicrous, fictitious official story of 9/11, these shameful tactics and practices will disappear forever.
I support all of your recommended actions above and I'll spread this outstanding article around.