The Tea Party rode to victory on a wave of economic suffering and vintage populist rhetoric about big government. Now, we will see if they are serious about libertarianism, or whether it was all just electioneering. A good place to start would be airport security.
I'd like one of our incoming GOP members of congress to propose a John Tyner bill, named after airport security's hero/villain of the moment, to return a modicum of privacy to Americans who travel by air. Although, generally, I'm not sympathetic to complaints about big government, one place where Tea Party libertarians and ACLU liberals might find common ground is in the outrageous expansions of the police state when it comes to naked body scans, pat downs, and the robotic, dehumanizing way in which airport security is handled by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).
Air travelers are now being asked (and soon required) to put their hands above their head -- the pose reminds me of the famous photo of the liquidation of the Warsaw Ghetto -- so that they can have a naked image of themselves beamed to a security agent. Of course, the reason is security. But Israelis don't do this, Europeans doesn't do this -- why are we now being asked to do it?
I'm not going to suggest a government conspiracy here. This isn't nearly so devious... or so conscious. This is a classic case of "zero tolerance" run amok, the same misguided idealism that leads to rapid-fire pharmaceutical disclaimers and "WARNING: HOT!" labels on coffee: the notion that, somehow, with enough legalese and blind procedures, we can be safe. Sincere government officials are entrusted with the impossible task of guaranteeing our safety, and they fulfill that responsibility as best they can -- which is to say, hyperbolically and myopically. TSA isn't charged with balancing security against the $2.6 billion in time we spend waiting in line. They're just told to keep us safe.
So, somehow, we have gotten to the point where detailed photos of our genitalia are taken every time we fly home to visit Grandma for Christmas. Or, alternatively, as John Tyner learned, you can have a stranger run his (or her) hands up to your genitals, to verify that you're not carrying anything that could hijack or destroy an airplane. (Like the toothpaste that TSA folks confiscated from me yesterday, because it was apparently .1 ounce over the limit.)
Here's what a John Tyner Act for Airport Security and Privacy could say:
1. Charge TSA with a new mandate, to balance security and the privacy needs of passengers. Replace zero tolerance with an extremely conservative balancing of costs and benefits. The costs of failure are unacceptable, so we must still be over-cautious. Just not this over-cautious. We should be able to keep our shoes on, for God's sake.
2. Empower TSA employees to use their discretion in applying the level of security to passengers, rather than using the maximum level for everyone. How many wheelchair-bound grandmothers do we have to humiliate before we adopt a more rational standard of scrutiny?
2a. As a footnote to #2, specifically ban racial profiling in setting those standards. As a 39-year-old male who frequently travels alone, I have no problem being put into the heightened security category because of those demographic criteria. At least I'll get through the line faster because the pensioners in front of me don't have to be. I don't really care if the security guards want to see or feel my junk, if it's part of a system that makes sense. What's so infuriating is that we all know this system is absurd.
3. Employ questioning techniques, such as used by El Al security, in conjunction with security scans. As El Al has shown for years (and as one El Al security officer explained to me privately), it takes only about ten seconds to determine if someone may be hiding something. Let the obviously innocent go through the fast lane too.
4. Appoint national ombudsmen (ombudspeople?) to be advocates for passengers. John Tyner's audio recording suggests that he let slip an imprudent remark and was punished for it. Yes, he should've kept his mouth shut. But maybe he would've done so if he'd known there was somewhere he could complain.
5. Strictly ban any use of TSA personnel for non-security purposes. Recently, a TSA guard told me my carry-on was too big, and wouldn't let me through until I checked it. That's not TSA's job - that's an airline issue. (In this case, the airline had already said it was fine anyway.) TSA officers work with the threat of government force behind them; that authority should never be expanded beyond actual security needs. By the way, that should also include drugs and other law enforcement issues. This is about security, not law enforcement generally, and we use different standards of privacy in different cases.
A year ago, I wrote that airport security procedures are:
dehumanizing, infantilizing, annoying, and worse. It may seem like a small thing, but the invasive procedures at every airport terminal keep us that much more afraid. No one likes to be searched, and while Terminal C is certainly not a checkpoint on the West Bank, it's one more incursion on our personal liberty by the state, one more coerced "consent" imposed upon all of us by unelected officials.These are concerns shared by libertarians and liberals, which is why a John Tyner Bill could be a bipartisan effort in the next congress. Getting government off our backs also includes getting it out of our buttocks.
Follow Jay Michaelson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jaymichaelson
Bob Cesca: When Your 'Junk' Is Touched at the Airport, Thank a Republican
Jane Hamsher: Investigate the TSA, Not Tyner
Very sad. I expected better from my party.
At the airport I was at, it was very random as to who went thru the full body scanner. Basically if it wasn't occupied then the next person.
I am extremly surprised at the number of people who consent to the full body scanner. If you read about it, it is scary. Tests have not be done extensively on it. The people behind the company selling the scanners are all former high level gov't employees who pushed their product. A big taxpayer ripoff!
We are headed to Florida soon but hav opted to drive this time as we don't want to subject our teenage son and daughter to this invasiveness. Some employees have been caught "viewing "the images. Also long term effects(on young reproductive systems) has not been tested.
Sorry, I disagree with the writer. I think profiling would help. If it had been done in the last few instances it would have helped.
If more people refused you would think it would change!
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, ***shall*not*be*violated***, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon ***probable*cause***, supported by Oath or affirmation, and ***particularly*describing*the*place*to*be*searched,*and*the*persons*or*things*to*be*seized."
I am much ore concerned about the dangers of an overreaching and oppressive government than I am about "terrorism".
War on Terror.??? How about a War on Tyranny..???
Neither the Backscatter X Ray scanner nor the T Wave scanner or the pat down will detect this device. We are spending close to a billion dollars and alternatively subjecting people to humiliation for very little protection. What a victory for our enemies.
The current procedures will accomplish nothing for the next level device. Read about the Prince Muhammad Bin Nayef attack in Saudi Arabia.
TSA, GTFO!
The problem I have is the ready acceptance of the scanning technology and its use. There has not been sufficient scientific study concerning the possible health risks of millimeter wave or backscatter X-ray. In general scientific terms, X-ray is widely believed to be carcinogenic. Why then are we to simply believe that backscatter X-ray is safe?
Privacy concerns are real. Why do we have to accept this level of invasion? If you've been to Singapore, you'll see tight security and only selective intensive screenings. Singapore is one of the most security conscious places I've ever seen. Do we really need this or have our fears been over-hyped?
Another problem for me is the hyped fear, especially by TSA officials. This fear hyping seems self-serving for the companies that make these "safe" screening devices. How much do they cost? How much revenue have the manufacturers generated since supplying these products? What role do these companies play in getting their devices placed into production? On the legislative process of airport security? The Department of Homeland Security?
Pretty much, we ALL know what we're in for at airport security. Both at once, that's not the point and that's exactly the point.
Like the black civil rights activists first sitting down at a whites-only lunch counter, you've got to start the challenge to injustices and abuse somewhere.
Tyner did just that - putting his conviction to action.
Whether he meant to or not, his lone action apparently speaks for the millions who share that same conviction.
That those millions lend him their full support makes a very powerful statement, a solid defense to the merits and justness of his act.
That Tyner presented his challenge with such clarity, reasonable logic and calm self-control is remarkable. His actions are an eloquent testament that civil disobedience can indeed be peaceful and effective.
His courageous stand will force the government to stand back and take stock. Why? Because Tyner and pilot Michael Roberts before him (and others?) have effectively demonstrated civil disobedience against egregious, illegal invasions of privacy without cause - they've set precedent.
TSA threats to submit and comply notwithstanding, there will be MORE of these defiant acts, not less.
A friend protested a similar search at an office building in a security conscious location. He successfully got the policy overturned. This invasion of our privacy at airports is because we as a nation have had fear drummed into our brains and we will readily accept anything that has the appearance of making us safer (full body scanners, crotch grabbing, etc.). I agree with the people who say they'll just protest the pat downs and slow the screening process to a crawl during Thanksgiving travel.
That has a better chance of effecting change. Not Tyner's churlish complaint about his "junk".
At the same time, we have to expect some level of invasion because air travel is security sensitive and it's a public trust. We just need a debate on the rules of engagement.