Sunday, November 21, 2010

Strip searches, groping and the illusion of "Safety"

In my last post, I ranted about being called a "sheep" for possibly subjecting myself to the indignity of undergoing either a virtual naked picture or being handled on the genitalia and breasts by glorified security guards as a condition of getting on an airplane.

I was supposed to go to Sacramento for a ragtime festival in which my significant other is appearing. When we bought the tickets in September, I wasn't aware of the presence of the scanner at O'Hare, from whence I would be flying. Even so, had I been selected for the random screening and refused the scanner, I would have been subjected to a normal pat-down. It wasn't until Nov. 1 that the Transportation Security Administration decided groping genitals and squeezing breasts were the "alternative" to nudie shots.

Well, after several sleepless nights and much agonizing, I decided to forgo the flight and stay home. I cannot tell you how difficult that decision was. My S.O. does not understand and feels that my refusal to accompany him was a lack of support for him. Of course, the cost of the ticket is non-refundable. So, big fight at home (and we almost never fight), financial loss much anxiety and anguish later, I'm sitting at home contemplating the state of affairs in our country. And I am ANGRY.

Having endured a groping as a child, I could hardly stand watching this video of a 3-year-old girl being "patted" (yeah... right):


I know - some of you who are parents see a cranky child being difficult. But as our perceptions are influenced by our experiences, I was screaming right along with that child, "Don't touch me! Don't touch me!" Now, I don't live my life as a victim. I don't dwell on those things which happened to me in the past, and while I still harbor anger and resentment about not having had justice served, I'm past most of the feelings of trauma. At least I thought I was. Funny how those things which we have buried deep in our psyche can bubble up when our memories are stirred or we are stressed, just as the Herpes virus which causes Chicken Pox can lurk deep in our tissues, only to emerge years later as shingles. So, here it was Tuesday and I was already feeling traumatized over what I MIGHT go through on Thursday.

But that isn't the only abuse I've seen the TSA perpetrate horrendous indignities on innocent people with no intent to do anything but get on a plane to fly somewhere:

So, on the one hand, I have people saying we're all sheep for putting up with this. On the other, people are saying that the TSA must do this to keep us safe, so buck up and get over it or (and this is my favorite!) "DON'T FLY." That really should be followed up with a pththththttttt!! or at least "Nyah-nee-nyah-nee-nyah-nah."

Well, if looking at just this small sampling of TSA harassment really makes you feel safer, I must question your common sense. But gee... at least it's fair, and after all you wouldn't put it past the terrorist thugs to plant explosives on a tiny boy or in an octagenarian's prosthetic leg or a cancer survivor's prosthetic breast (or to inject some in her gel implant), right? So, let's take a look at just how safe these NEW procedures are keeping us, really, and how much an improvement they are over the old metal detector and wanding procedures they've been using since 9/11/01, shall we?

Let's start by counting the number of commercial airliners that have fallen out of the sky at the hands of terrorists since then; specifically, domestic flights. That's okay, I'll wait while you Google it. Still waiting... Okay, NONE. A UPS cargo plane came down, not in the US, though. That is ZERO for some 102 MILLION flights.

Now, let's count how many terrorists trying to get on planes have actually been caught by TSA agents through routine passenger screening. That's okay... I'll wait. Um... NONE. So, just in case you were thinking that zero planes down was a testament to how well the TSA is doing, that ought to burst your bubble.

While looking up other things, I discovered a very interesting website for a group called the Airline Pilots Security Alliance. Their site hasn't been updated in a while, but I've been assured by president Dave Mackett that they're in the process of doing that and will be pushing hard on Congress in January. Here are some snippets from their spotlight article:


"The security strategy we use to protect this incomprehensibly large system was designed 40 years ago to deter rank amateurs from carrying guns onto airplanes to hijack them to Cuba. The threat we face today is anything but amateur. Al Qaeda is smart, patient, extraordinarily motivated, well-funded, and, above all, suicidal. There is presently no widely-deployable technology that has a significant chance of keeping such a well-prepared enemy out of such an impossibly large system every time – even most times.

...

"The American Airlines shoebomber passed through screening not once, but twice, wearing explosive-laden shoes, and was not detected despite being detained and questioned for hours within a month after intelligence warned of potential shoebombers; an untrained Maryland college student doing his own 'personal testing' of airline security successfully planted simulated weapons and explosives on multiple commercial airliners several years ago. He was successful every time he tried -- and in some cases, the weapons were not detected for weeks.

"Perhaps most damning, two recent classified TSA reports leaked to the public, confirm TSA screeners at multiple airports, failed to detect more than 90 percent of hidden weapons concealed by testers. This failure rate is nearly identical to that confirmed by a former FAA Red Team leader in covert penetration tests before 9/11. And these failures do not even consider an entire class of nearly undetectable weapons, like carbon knives and liquid explosives.

...

"Layer upon layer of new and more intrusive security, reacting to the latest 'just-discovered threat' cannot be the default response as time goes on. Focusing on defending the targets, and smarter, more selective passenger screening, as well as research and investment into less intrusive standoff screening and behavioral profiling, advantages not only the security of the traveling public -- it dovetails nicely into the revenue objectives of the airline industry by not alienating the very passengers the industry needs to remain robust. And it addresses the civil rights concerns of passengers who feel unnecessarily violated by the screening requirement. ..."

If you still think you're safe, go to their homepage and read all the articles under the heading, "How Safe Are You?" Or just read their summary article, "Reliability of Our Airline Security System as a Whole: There is very little chance we will be able to prevent or defend against the next 9/11."

They claim:

"The new 'multilayered' airline security system is a sieve, in which none of the layers work. Even all of them together cannot hope to prevent the kind of rehearsed, coordinated, well-planned terrorist attack Al Qaeda is capable of. Our government has spent $12 billion on airline security and recent government reports have found we’re no safer than we were before. ...

"It will take incorruptible people in positions of power who recognize the urgency of defending against future terror attacks and the truly woeful lack of preparedness of our present air security system, and are steadfast and fearless enough to put aside partisanship and special interests for the security of our country, to make us safe from future attacks, and to provide for the American people, true airline security.

"It will also take the concerted will of the country to hold them accountable to do so. Our failure to prevent future attacks will have devastating repercussions for American lives, our economy, our freedom and our collective futures.

"If Al Qaeda conducts a well-organized, coordinated attack on our airline industry tomorrow, there is much too great a chance they will succeed."

In test after test, agents and amateurs have been able to sneak weapons past checkpoints with 90-95% success rates. The scanners were put in place with the excuse that the Underwear/Christmas bomber would have been stopped. No, he wouldn't. Even David Pistole, the current talking head of the TSA, wouldn't quite go so far as to guarantee it when interviewed by Juan Williams on Nov. 19 (sorry, I can't find video on this, but trust me - he stopped short of saying the scanners and/or pat-downs would have caught that guy). But here's the deal - the Nigerian did not board the plane in the U.S. He had no passport. Security authorities in several countries were notified that the guy was a threat, but still he waltzed through security and onto a plane bound for the US. YOU JUST CAN'T FIX STUPID.

Oh, and speaking of not being able to fix stupid, check out this story, "Another TSA Outrage." It tells the tale of a soldier on his way home from Afghanistan on a military charter. Feel safer yet?

Even Congressman John Mica, one of the original authors of the bill establishing the TSA, has written to heads of more than 150 airports, asking them to opt out of TSA screening:

"When the TSA was established, it was never envisioned that it would become a huge, unwieldy bureaucracy which was soon to grow to 67,000 employees," Mica writes. "As TSA has grown larger, more impersonal, and administratively top-heavy, I believe it is important that airports across the country consider utilizing the opt-out provision provided by law."

In addition to being large, impersonal, and top-heavy, what really worries critics is that the TSA has become dangerously ineffective. Its specialty is what those critics call "security theater" -- that is, a show of what appear to be stringent security measures designed to make passengers feel more secure without providing real security. "That's exactly what it is," says Mica. "It's a big Kabuki dance."


So, let's see. No commercial passenger airliners out of 102 million since 9/11/01 have been taken out by terrorists. No terrorists have been caught in passenger screening. An awful lot of amputees, cancer victims, little old ladies, tiny tots and other innocent people have been shaken down, fondled, handcuffed, arrested, harassed, groped and humiliated, and I'll just bet the TSA has a huge collection of cigarette lighters, nail clippers, baby formula, applesauce, knitting needles and other everyday items which have never been used in a terror attack and could hardly be imagined as weapons. Even one of the creators of the TSA is telling airports to opt out. Common sense would dictate that these security measures are just not worth the hassle and expense.

But there's another thing that bugs me on a very deep emotional level. It's called the Constitution; and specifically the Bill of Rights.

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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'm a law-abiding citizen with no criminal history, no ties to terrorism, no international associations outside of Canada and Europe. Even my driving record is so clean you can eat off it.

My purchasing a plane ticket to go to a ragtime festival does not constitute probable cause. Making me stand for nude imaging and groping my genitals and breasts are NOT REASONABLE SEARCHES.

I've had friends tell me that safety should trump the Constitution. Really? As far as I'm concerned, our safety lies within the Constitution. If "safety" came first, I suppose next they could put us into chutes, have us take off all of our clothes and do a full body cavity search, plus some sort of MRI to make sure we haven't swallowed explosives in balloons that are hidden in our stomachs. Maybe police should go from house to house, doing thorough searches for drugs, unregistered firearms or other contraband to keep us "safe."

Maybe we should just tear up our Constitution, which is supposed to protect us from unreasonable searches and seizures, which is pretty much what we do when we allow ourselves and our children to be treated like this. But remember that it is the Constitution which stands between us and tyranny. It guarantees that our freedoms remain intact and we remain unmolested by our government. Government workers sticking their hands down our pants, squeezing our "junk," without reasonable cause is so very, very wrong.

I'm told over and over again, "If you don't like it, don't fly." Okay. I didn't. Now hear this:

LIFE IS NOT WITHOUT RISK AND IS NOT COMPLETELY SAFE.

I say LOSE THE SCANNERS, STOP MOLESTING US. If you're afraid that the skies will no longer be safe, YOU DON'T FLY.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Finally blog with usable informations.

Anonymous said...

Ben Franklin said it best: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Very well written and insightful.

chas

Sean said...

Hi Tracy,

I'm the Tea Party editor at Before It's News. Our site is a People Powered news platform with over 4,000,000 visits a month and growing fast.

We would be honored if we could republish the Tempest in a Tea Party blog rss feed in our Tea Party category. Our readers need to read what American patriots like you have to say.

Syndicating to Before It's News is a terrific way to spread the word and grow your audience. If you are interested in syndicating with us, please contact me at

sean [at] beforeitsnews [dot] com

Thank you