Low-Downs On Pat-Downs (The Point)

News Central ^ | 12/05/2004 | Mark Hyman

[Angry Republican]

Helen Chenoweth-Hage had a simple request. The former Idaho Congressman had been pulled aside at the Boise Airport for secondary screening to include a physical pat-down. Chenoweth-Hage had sailed through the metal detector without problem, but TSA officials wanted to scrutinize her some more.

The former Congressman simply asked to see the regulations that permitted TSA officials to pat her down. They refused. And she refused to allow them to pat her down. So they booted her off her flight.

Incidents like this have happened so many times that it is beyond absurd. The regulations of TSA, which should stand for "Thousands Standing Around," are cloaked in secrecy. In this case, a 66-year old former Member of Congress is told to submit to further scrutiny for reasons of political correctness and to inflate inspection numbers.

According to aviation industry sources, the TSA intentionally targets individuals for further scrutiny not because they pose a threat, but because their profiles fit those the least likely to complain. Groups getting extra scrutiny include government employees and the military. Other national security threats reportedly requiring further scrutiny in the past include former Vice President Al Gore and longtime Congressman John Dingell.

The two-part problem is this. First, inspecting people who clearly do not pose a threat distracts attention from those who could pose a threat. Second, the notion that TSA can subject the public to regulations that are not made public is ludicrous. It's like citing a motorist for speeding with the speed limit signs all covered.

The Transportation Security Administration has not provided real and responsible security to our nation's airlines and airports. Playing hide and seek with the regulations and subjecting innocents to absurd inspections in the name of political correctness is simply a waste of time and money.

And that's the Point.

I'm Mark Hyman.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Would anyone be surprised?

[narses]

Ping.

[narses]

"Do you know who I am?"

They knew her. I used to live in Idaho. EVERYONE knew Helen. The TSA jerk acknowledged her by name and in conversation it was obvious he knew her. He KNEW she was NOT a terrorist and wanted to feel her up anyhow. My bet? He lives in Legislative District 19 - the one that just elected the first open LESBIAN to the Idaho Legislature. The TSA is a government jobs program and the DEMS just HATED Helen. They still do.

[narses]

Hele is a HERO not a NITWIT, go it?

[narses]

"There is a time and place for everything and in line at an airport is not the time to be asking to see the regulations."

BS. Either the CONSTITUTION means something or it doesn't. What 'probable cause' existed to pat down one of the most well known women in Idaho? A grandmother?

[TexasCowboy]

"You act like the security folks just pulled up to the airport and decided to start groping folks for the fun of it."

No, not really. They all just got laid off from McDonalds, and it's pay back time.

"It is a reasonable search, given the circumstances."

That depends. "Reasonable" doesn't mean running their hands up my crotch. That pisses me off! Only my girlfriend is allowed to do that!
There are ways to "pat" people down. A few of them know how; most don't.

[steve86]

Above all, don't be a jerk at the airport. The rest of us would like to catch our flight

If I find myself in front of you in a TSA line I'm going to throw a hissy fit like you wouldn't believe.

[steve86]

Something must be working. Air travel has been pretty safe

Yes, it has been pretty safe, but not necessarily due to the near rapes in TSA queues.

Like T.T. just said, he can't understand why they haven't tried anything. [by poisoning the food supply, but the same remark goes for other types of attacks]. I personally believe that Iran & Syria to them to lay off for a while, until a certain device is ready.

[thor76]

You make an excellant point. The alleged "security BS" at airports serves very little purpose except to torment our citizens, and effectively discourage personal travel .

ASking persons to go through metal detectors and x-ray screening of all luggage should be generally sufficient.

The much more important issue - which is forgotten and forbidden in general conversation is the issue of our physical borders. This is the huge white elephant in the living room that nobody will discuss.

From knowing what is going on at our Mexican border, this is all a big joke. Folks cross that border in violation of our laws with gross impunity. There is NO border security.

Putting a fence across the border, and using our military to guard it (which is the first purpose of having an army anyway) would only make sense........instead of having them chase shadows across the world, and defend Exxon's interest in oilfields!

For those who think such a fence would not work, a similar concept did. It was called the Soviet bloc.......or Eastern Europe. Remember that????

[Max Combined]

"That depends. "Reasonable" doesn't mean running their hands up my crotch."

Fine. Don't fly or get a judge to agree with you.

[Max Combined]

"BS. Either the CONSTITUTION means something or it doesn't. What 'probable cause' existed to pat down one of the most well known women in Idaho? A grandmother?"

Fine, either don't fly or find a judge who agrees with you, that it is unconstitutional to search people before they board an airplane. Good luck.

[Max Combined]

"Hele is a HERO not a NITWIT, go it?"

By demanding to see the regulations that authorize her being patted down, she proved herself to be a nitwit. Got it?

[Max Combined]

"Interesting how all the government buildings have turned into, plush, super secured, armed, guarded, fortress like buildings."

Nonsense. You do not get out much, do you?

[Max Combined]

"These planes fly overhead, with people on board that have been searched, scanned, groped, and sniffed, as they fly over millions on the ground that enter our country illegally, routinely, with little effort."

You seem obsessed with the sniffing business. Given the history of terrorism on airplanes, it is reasonable that security be elevated at airports. There is no connection between needing security at airports and our needing to step up control of our borders. We can and should do both. This is not an either or proposition and it is not the type of situation where unless we do a better job of controlling our borders then we must not do any security screening at airports.

[Max Combined]

"Only my girlfriend is allowed to do that!"

Never been to the doctor, eh? I guess you never played sports or had a physical.

[Max Combined]

"and they ALWAYS pat me down."

I'll bet they do. I'll just bet they do.

"they just got a nutty Paddy on their hands within seconds."

Is there any other kind?

I have flown around Europe quite a bit over the years, into and out of Dublin this past August, in fact, among other destinations. Back when things were more tense with the IRA, I was screened by having to answer fifty questions when flying out of London to Amsterdam. On my latest trip, the security at airports in Europe was not as tight as it is in the US, but the threat is not as high against Europe as it is in the US.

While flying in the US, I sometimes get behind Europeans in security lines and they seem to be a little bewildered by all the rigmarole required to get on a plane in the US.

I fly with a watch and watch band made of titanium and it never sets off the alarm at security. That much titanium would make a fine knife, if someone wanted to get one on a plane.

The main security for folks on the ground and for those on the plane is that the cockpit is secure and that the crew does not open the door for any reason. As long as a terrorist cannot get into the cockpit, the damage they can do is relatively minor.

[Max Combined]

The perfect is the enemy of the good enough.

There is always more that could be done. Like everything else in life, there are trade offs to be made.

As far as screening workers at airports, I am sure it could be better, but surely you have read the stories of all the illegal immigrants arrested at many airports around the country due to background checks run on them?

When the 911 hijackers used box cutters to pull off their stunt, security was upgraded to try to prevent that from happening again. When Richard Reed darn near blew up a plane with explosives in his shoes, they started looking more closely at shoes. After two Russian planes were blown up by two women wearing explosives under their clothing, they decided to start patting people down.

They are reactive and not proactive, but that is the way large government agencies always operate. If you have been a public teacher and have experience with the military, you should certainly know by now that silly rules are part of the mix.

I am not an expert in this field. I do not like going through security and the way they do things at the airport have often annoyed me. I am not saying that security at airports could not be improved and even if it is improved by an order of magnitude, I still think that it will be possible for a smart terrorist to bring down an airplane.

I am saying that getting all huffy and demanding to see the regulations that allow pat downs is stupid.

[Max Combined]

"How secure are we until everyone who is in any way associated with air travel is fully screened?"

If that is the way you feel, then I suppose you should work to make that happen.

In the meantime, patting down folks randomly id not the end of life as we know it.

[Max Combined]

"Women are being required to take off their shirts."

Nonsense. Provide citations.

[Max Combined]

"I don't fly, which is why I'm asking."

You can go to the TSA site and read the regulations. Men are also subject to being patted down with the back of the hand.