Clinton: We Need To 'Strike The Right Balance' With TSA Patdowns

WASHINGTON — Would Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton like to submit to one of those security pat-downs at airports?

"Not if I could avoid it. No. I mean who would?" she told CBS' "Face the Nation" in an interview broadcast Sunday.

Echoing comments from President Barack Obama, she said administration officials should try to make the new airport security measures, including full body scans and intimate pat-downs, less intrusive.

"I think everyone, including our security experts, are looking for ways to diminish the impact on the traveling public," she told NBC's "Meet the Press."

"I mean obviously the vast, vast majority of people getting on these planes are law abiding citizens who are just trying to get from one place to another. But let's not kid ourselves. The terrorists are adaptable," she added.

"Striking the right balance is what this is about. And I am absolutely confident that our security experts are gonna keep trying to get it better and less intrusive and more precise."

For example, she said it might be possible to consider ways to limit the number of people who go through surveillance.

"Everybody is trying to do the right thing and I understand how difficult it is, and how offensive it must be for the people who are going through it," she said.

Comments

[Manny Peddy]

03:05 PM on 11/24/2010

This entire problem should be dealt with as many others are. With technology, given certain engineering constraints. For example:

1. The screening should be relatively inexpensive
2. The screening should not take a lot of time
3. The screening should minimize embarrassment
4. The screening should minimize privacy concerns
5. The receiver operating curve of the procedure should be optimized for type I and II errors
6. There should not be some subjective "profiling" involved, nor should there be political correctness constraints.
7. There should be maximum flexibility for materials in carry-on luggage.
8. The procedure should have the ability to "learn" given the changing threat environment.

I think it can be done. However, such a system cannot be created by howling political jackasses and assorted morons. All that does is create a lot of sturm und drang, but really accomplishes nothing.

Instead, thinking people have to be involved. And as near as I can tell, few "thinking people" have been involved so far.

I am sure they are saying, "Let us know when you want us to step in for you and get involved".

[Oilygarch]

11:25 AM on 11/24/2010

http://nob­lasters.co­m/post/165­0102322/my­-tsa-encou­nter

the actual audio of the experience:
http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=LkRPS0pSS­cQ&feature­=player_em­bedded

[Oilygarch]

11:26 AM on 11/24/2010

http://nob­lasters.co­m/post/165­0102322/my­-tsa-encou­nter

the actual audio of the experience:
http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=LkRPS0pSS­cQ&feature­=player_em­bedded

[carnegie]

05:45 PM on 11/23/2010

I wonder how many of these people screaming about their liberties and invasion of privacy had such qualms when their corporate employers ask for random drug tests, demanding a cup of their urine from time to time.

Sounds a lot more invasive to me. And if you don't agree to it you won't get hired and hence won't be able to pay your bills, buy food and survive. But this atrocious bit of police state nonsense has largely been given a free pass.


I wonder why.

[pcull]

06:01 PM on 11/23/2010

Because most Americans are too distracted by the political theater created by a bankrupt two party system to take the time to read and actually understand the protections afforded us by the Bill of Rights. I think both Liberals and Republicans should love their guns, and practice with them often, just to exercise the Second Amendment.

[SonyaInTx]

03:02 AM on 11/23/2010

Yes, bin Laden vowed to bankrupt America and it has happened. We are fighting this war on terror. Things are improving in Iraq, but Afghanistan is a sinkhole. Ask the Russians how effective fighting the Afghans are.....

What we get here at home is trillions spent on the two wars and airport security that changes in response to the new method each new crackpot uses to down planes.

Maybe there is a good reason for profiling. I still maintain that, for example, an anglo grandma is not packing PETN in her Depends.....

[MarsAmbassador]

09:37 PM on 11/22/2010

They're going way too far. They're making breast cancer survivors pull their implants out in front of everyone, they're putting their hands down people's pants, they're fully and completely grabbing male genitals and feeling around, they are going WAY too far. If they did this to someone in a grocery store or even at a police station with no probable cause they'd be convicted of sexual assault. By submitting to this and handing over your freedoms, you are doing the work of Al Qaeda. This is EXACTLY what they wanted.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- Ben Franklin

[LewisPoretz]

09:22 PM on 11/22/2010

The real lesson of the TSA and patdowns | http://ow.ly/3e0Ip

[CrazyThisIs]

08:53 PM on 11/22/2010

Can we all agree that this is, obviously, not the TSA agents' fault? Can we also agree not to badger the poor TSA agents who have to pat us down or lose their jobs? I am dead against this policy and quite hotly, but I have had to fly a few time this last month and many people's responses are directed wholly against the wrong people.

TSA agents are not our enemy. Do you really think there are a group of workers out there that would invite this kind of vitriol upon themselves? Congress is in control of the TSA. Unfortunately, we know that the TSA agents will hear us and we're almost positive Congress won't. Still, let's focus on making our disatisfaction heard by the Congress.

We're a group that generally prides ourselves on understanding what "others" are going through and seek to stand up for those "others". Today, those "others" are TSA agents. Don't know one, but one doesn't need to to understand that NO ONE makes enough $$$ to put up with the abuses hurled at them as of late. Lets do this right.

Thanks HP community!

[123anon]

10:22 PM on 11/22/2010

fav'd.

Please make sure you are sitting down (tray table in folded upright position, set belt on) before I ask you this.

Consider.

Enhanced pat downs are so profoundly new and shocking compared to "plain ole vanilla" pat downs.

***Do you ...really... believe that either TSA or Homeland Security would just do this with out pre-approval from higher up the food chain?

Isn't it logical to assume Joe Biden knew about this before it started?

[CrazyThisIs]

11:43 PM on 11/22/2010

I'm not really a conspiracy theory buff. That said, I really did think about your assumption. My thought, possible, but I doubt it. The testing of the scanners began in 2007. Under one George W. They were implemented or kick-started under Obama after the Christmas day bomber. Do you think it was a conspiracy that went through the very top of two administrations from two different parties?

Also, what does Joe Biden have to do with any of this? Why would he have any more oversight of the White House cabinet than The President?

I truly think this got green-lighted out of true regard for safety. I think it was pushed by Michael Chernoff for monetary reasons (nothing illegal there - although questionably immoral), but then that is how Washington has been working for years. Also, Chernoff very well could have thought this was a good product that would keep America safe. I do not know.

My little opinion.

[123anon]

10:23 PM on 11/22/2010

Here's a better question. How could the v.p. have people in the cabinet that would do this without his pre-approval?

[CrazyThisIs]

11:48 PM on 11/22/2010

The President and V.P. have so much on their desk that they have to trust somewhat what the people they have chosen to fill a cabinet position put in front of them. POTUS and V.P. may get a briefing and overview from the cabinet members, but they don't always know the end game, ie. how it will work out in the real world

[BacSi]

05:12 PM on 11/22/2010

Flying for me changed on 9/11.

Pat me down. Its really not a big deal to me. Pat my Mrs down. I could care less. And if it upsets her too much she should drive next time.

I take no joy in feeling this way. But it is the way I feel.

[MarsAmbassador]

09:36 PM on 11/22/2010

No. They're going way too far. They're making breast cancer survivors pull their implants out in front of everyone, they're putting their hands down people's pants, they're fully and completely grabbing male genitals and feeling around, they are going WAY too far. If they did this to someone in a grocery store or even at a police station with no probable cause they'd be convicted of sexual assault. By submitting to this and handing over your freedoms, you are doing the work of Al Qaeda. This is EXACTLY what they wanted.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- Ben Franklin

[BacSi]

10:02 AM on 11/23/2010

Mars, I can't argue with you about the loss of liberties. Not the loss and not the sadness that comes with it.

But what I stated was what I feel when I fly. When my family flies. Especially when the grandkids fly.

If I could feel different about this I would. I took no pride in stating my position.

[BlackTom]

01:43 PM on 11/22/2010

"The right balance" is returning to the wanding and non-invasive pat downs of two weeks ago.
How friggin's hard is that?

[LongTimeLiberal52]

11:34 AM on 11/22/2010

A little common sense please, kids!

First of all, anyone who insists on framing this as a partisan issue should immediately be flogged. Those here crucifying "Obama's TSA" are conveniently forgetting the 7 years of "all fear, all the time" given to us by the previous Administration, an atmosphere which brought us to this point to begin with, color-coded charts and all.

So stop the "blame Obama" nonsense. The agitators planting this meme are undoubtedly the same "patriots" who willingly sacrificed civil liberty after civil liberty in the name of "national security" between 2001 and 2008. Please zip it, and let's all get real.

And what's real is that terrorists do like to blow up planes. So ALL fliers have to be scanned. No options. No pat-downs. Time to grow up, America, and get over the Victorian prudishness and "Don't Tread On Me" hyperbole.

This is the world we live in, and helped create.

Let's just make the process quick and efficient. Hell, with technology this good and imaging this thorough, we can dispense with removing those shoes, jackets and hats - so that should speed things along already.

Sorry gang, but when we finally get smart enough to elect leaders who actually DO something about world peace, we can eliminate the invasive security precautions.

I do guarantee you this, though: Our outraged, indignant, "violated" citizenry will scream bloody murder that we should have had MORE security the next time a plane is blown from the sky...

[elizlucinda]

11:41 AM on 11/22/2010

thank you for your thoughtful commentary.

[Tuned IN]

06:13 PM on 11/22/2010

Unfortunately for us, the same people establishing our invasive "security" policies, are the same that establish our invasive foreign policies... and not only are they exempted from these overreaching polices, they profit from them.

[glzgowlass]

10:44 AM on 11/22/2010

I'm guessing that as she works for the executive branch this is a close as she can get to saying this is a bad idea.

[Lisbeth35]

10:49 AM on 11/22/2010

yup. pretty much sums it up.

[needlefingers]

10:01 AM on 11/22/2010

She may not want a patdown, but I hear her husband is flying a lot more.

[DesertRatzoRizzo]

09:38 AM on 11/22/2010

Osama bin Laden has won. He boasted that he would bankrupt America, and, after we have thrown well over a trillion dollars down the ratholes that are Afghanistan and Iraq with no real end in sight, he has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. And now he has cowed America into a self-imposed heart of darkness of paranoia at the nation's airports at virtually no cost to al Qaeda and billions of dollars in cost to America. I can just picture him in his comfortable villa in northwest Pakistan under the protection of the Pakistani Intelligence Services gloating and high-fiving his Taliban and al Qaeda jihadis at this sordid, outrageous and ultimately fraudulent effort to improve security on commercial airlines. Shame, shame, shame!

[Jan Allen McDaniel]

09:35 AM on 11/22/2010

For example, she said it might be possible to consider ways to limit the number of people who go through surveillance.
=================================
Screening for threat does require the ability to define the enemy and the enemy's ideology.

Are all Muslims a threat? No.

All Muslim males between 17 and 40 years of age? No.

Is there a religious profile that indicates a Muslim may be a terrorist?

Yes.

Belief in the political supremacy of Islam as described in Sharia law. 100% of all Muslim terrorists are Islamist, though all Islamists are not terrorists. Some believe in gaining the political supremacy of Islam through legal means.

Islamists often identify themselves proudly.

One vector of terrorism that can be screened for is Islamism.

So far, we have lacked the political will to act on this knowledge. Perhaps body cavity searches will finally change that.

Even this level of screening will miss some Western reverts who have purposely stayed covert in their belief in violent Islamism. No profiling will ever be perfect.

But we can do better than we are doing.

[jwadvocate83]

10:24 AM on 11/22/2010

"Islamists often identify themselves proudly."

You and Juan Williams have your facts wrong on this.

[Jan Allen McDaniel]

10:51 AM on 11/22/2010

Bin Laden:

“[O]ur talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them ultimately revolve around one issue, and it is: Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually...

The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 42.


Sheikhs Qaradawi and Alwani:


"‘Alamiyyat al-Islam, the principle in fiqh al-aqalliyyat that declares Islam to be a global religion meant to encompass the entire world, provides the basis for answering these questions.

The world is divided into two parts, separated only by time: the lands under Muslim rule and those which will eventually receive the Islamic dawa and come under Muslim rule. Muslims who live in non-Muslim countries, therefore, should not be obligated to migrate back to a Muslim country.

They are allowed to live in non-Muslim countries, albeit for the purpose of being the bearers the religious call and inviting others to Islam.24"


http://www.currenttrends.org/docLib/20061018_MonographFishman2.pdf

Muslim Brotherhood:


The Brotherhood's stated goal is to instill the Qur'an and Sunnah as the "sole reference point for ... ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community ... and state".[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood

Note that I do not say that violent Islamists declare themselves. But the sea of Islamism is where the terrorist Islamist sharks swim. The only difference is tactics; they have the same goals. Screen them all.

[Manny Peddy]

01:13 PM on 11/22/2010

I hope you know the difference between a Muslim and an Islamist.

[Oilygarch]

12:15 PM on 11/24/2010

> ''Islamists often identify themselves proudly.''

In all these occasions: The extremists did a great job of blending in with the local culture, looking clean-cut and westernized right before they det0nated themselves.

[Jan Allen McDaniel]

12:28 PM on 11/24/2010

I should have made it clearer that I was referring to Islamists identifying themselves in their lives at large, not in the security line at an airport.

Islamists are an identifiable segement of society that we can give extra attention to before they present at an airport--as the Israelis do.

[TexasTreader]

09:17 AM on 11/22/2010

LOL, liberals here think this is about pride?! OK, you run with that while little Johnny is getting de-shirted and a uniformed agent is getting to 2nd base with Sister Mary Katherine. I'm gonna put my money on the possibility that there are still enough decent Americans to dump this practice on its head.

[INVet]

09:24 AM on 11/22/2010

This issue is not liberal or conservative. I am pretty liberal and I do NOT want either these scanners or pat downs! Common sense and decency should not be owned by the Right or the Left.

[TexasTreader]

09:37 AM on 11/22/2010

That's my point, exactly! No matter what side of the political fence you graze on, Obama's TSA is offensive. You've got Janet Napolitano defending the "love pats" and Hillary Clinton saying that nobody would want to submit them. Meanwhile, you have threats of an $11,000 fine if you don't let government agents feel you up. It's just another reason to bet that the Tea Party will ride public contempt with this administration all the way to the presidency. Just because an issue like this shouldn't be a partisan weapon doesn't mean it won't be used as one.

[elizlucinda]

09:31 AM on 11/22/2010

Texas...why is this a political issue to you. |Pathetic

[TexasTreader]

09:39 AM on 11/22/2010

It's a political issue because we can use it to win. You remember winning, don't you? It's when you DEFEAT your opponent.