CBS Early Show Frets Over 'Passenger Gridlock,' Glosses Over TSA Civil Liberties Abuses
"Early Show" co-host Maggie Rodriguez today glossed over the TSA's use of intrusive pat-downs while drilling down on the potential for "gridlock" if distressed passengers cause "chaos" this weekend over the enhanced security measures.
"There is, as I'm sure you know, this online movement that's gaining more and more momentum calling for people tomorrow to opt-out of those full-body scanners and get pat-downs instead to create chaos at the airport," noted Rodriguez, interviewing aviation expert Peter Goelz. "The head of the TSA told me yesterday that will only serve to further delay and further irritate passengers. How bad do you think it could get?"
Parroting the TSA chief's talking points, the CBS anchor failed to question Goelz, former managing director of the National Transportation Safety Board, about the potential for civil liberties abuses. Instead, CBS displayed graphics hyperbolizing "TSA Turbulence" and fretting "Will Passenger Gridlock Hamper Holiday Travel?"
Rodriguez even shifted the burden of responsibility from the government to the passengers: "Is there anything, Peter, that you suggest that people do as they travel in the next couple of days to make things go smoothly?"
As MRC Research Director Rich Noyes reported, while broadcast networks have "generally empathized with the distress of airline passengers," they have yet to criticize the Obama administration for violating basic American civil liberties.
Continuing this disturbing trend, Rodriguez afforded the Democratic administration every benefit of the doubt in her interview with Goelz, speculating that there must be a valid reason for the TSA's actions.
"Do you think it might be possible that there might be a credible terrorist threat specifically surrounding these travel dates that we may not be aware of and that's why they're enforcing this so much?" asked Rodriguez, to which Goelz reassured her that there must be "specific threats" that the general public doesn't know about.
In contrast to Rodriguez's trusting disposition toward the current administration, the broadcast networks failed to give former President George W. Bush the same benefit of the doubt after the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program was disclosed.
While the networks have been reluctant to criticize the government for fondling, groping, and molesting passengers, they repeatedly scolded the airlines in August 2007 for excessive delays and other flight issues.
A transcript of Rodriguez's interview with Goelz can be found below:
CBS
The Early Show
November 23, 2010
7:15 A.M. EDT
MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ, host: Joining us now from Washington is aviation expert Peter Goelz. He is former managing director of the NTSB. Peter, good morning.
PETER GOELZ, aviation expert: Good morning.
RODRIGUEZ: No matter how much people protest these new screening measures or threaten to boycott the full-body scanners tomorrow, the TSA is not budging on this. What does that tell you?
GOELZ: Well, what it means is the threat is real and I think the majority of Americans understand that. Al-Qaeda and their minions are still focused on aviation and killing Americans. So we need to have enhanced procedures. We need to have procedures that try to outsmart the terrorists.
RODRIGUEZ: Do you think it might be possible that there might be a credible terrorist threat specifically surrounding these travel dates that we may not be aware of and that's why they're enforcing this so much?
GOELZ: Well I speculate about that. I mean, this is, you know, we know that the terrorists are focused on aviation. We know they focus around holiday periods. They've tried to have events before. So I think there may be some specific threats that the TSA and the Homeland Security and acting on and that these procedures are necessary.
RODRIGUEZ: There is, as I'm sure you know, this online movement that's gaining more and more momentum calling for people tomorrow to opt-out of those full-body scanners and get pat-downs instead to create chaos at the airport. The head of the TSA told me yesterday that will only serve to further delay and further irritate passengers. How bad do you think it could get?
GOELZ: Well I think people are smarter than that. When you're traveling on holidays, the whole purpose is to get to where you're going safely and on-time. Who wants to spend hours on end in an airport for simply making a point that is really kind of obscure to begin with? The overwhelming majority of people are going to go through the check-in procedures without incident and get to where they want to go to on-time and safely.
RODRIGUEZ: We hope so. Is there anything, Peter, that you suggest that people do as they travel in the next couple of days to make things go smoothly?
GOELZ: Sure. Just review what the procedures are. You know, people who don't fly very often sometimes forget what is expected of them at the check-in. Go to the websites, take a look, be prepared for the check-in.
RODRIGUEZ: Very good. Peter Goelz, thank you so much and Happy Thanksgiving to you.
GOELZ: Same to you.
- Alex Fitzsimmons's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
The people angry over the pat
Submitted by JesseJacksonIV on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 1:14pm.
The people angry over the pat downs, would be the first ones to bash Obama for not doing enough if terrorists blow up a plane.Again with this!
Submitted by jon_torlin on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 1:36pm.
Guess where the terrorists come from? Overseas. 20-30 year old Muslim males.
Who's being fondled? Kids and grandparents.
So if the next plane blows up, as per your scenario, are you going to blame the kids and grandparents? Or the terrorists?
-Jon
Indeed. They praised the
Submitted by yutsnark on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 1:42pm.
Indeed. They praised the airport security measures initiated by Bush, even when an overzealous air marshall killed an innocent passenger. Now that we have a Democratic prez, it's a "civil liberties" violation.
That's a stupid comparison,
Submitted by Newsbusterbrown on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 2:34pm.
That's a stupid comparison, yutsnark. Air marshals are equivalent to police officers. How then does that compare to the new TSA guidelines?
“There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
Both are measures taken to
Submitted by yutsnark on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 4:34pm.
Both are measures taken to fight terrorism and protect airline passengers.
Sorry champ
Submitted by donabernathy on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 5:36pm.
Not everyone was onboard with Bush's security measures after 9/11.
Ya see sport, before 9/11 hijackings usually ended with some type of action on a Cuban tarmac
The fact is, after 9/11, towel heads with box cutters, hijacking a plane and using it as a fuel deliverly device immediately became a thing of the past . As was evidenced on a field in Pennsylvania that day.
Ya Know
Submitted by donabernathy on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 5:16pm.
Kill'n the paitent will also kill the cancer... But do ya really call that a success?
roflmao
Jesse get a clue
Submitted by expatriot on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 1:20pm.
Jesse the pat downs will not prevent the terrorists from blowing up a plane you idiot. The baggage handlers are the weak point right now. They need to have new back ground checks and be patted down, not the flying public you sheeple.
That, and the underwear
Submitted by ninerdog on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 1:45pm.
That, and the underwear bomber was over a year ago. Way to be on top of it there TSA. He also came out of Yemen and even if this procedure was in practice “it is only in the USA” He would still be on a plane with a bomb because no other country does any of this. Do we have that many domestic terrorists to warrant this treatment?
They need to do a lot of
Submitted by JesseJacksonIV on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 1:30pm.
They need to do a lot of things, but pat downs can prevent something. Terrorists may be evil, but they're not stupid. We need to do all we can to prevent something. If that includes pat doewn, then we'll just have to live with it. Profiling won't work. Al Queda will just start recruiting non-Muslims for the attacksMaybe they could start with
Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 1:56pm.
Maybe they could start with you...........you seem to be up for it, and apparantly you're not a little kid, or an old lady, or a woman with a prosthetic, or a guy with a urine bag, or some of these other dangerous types of people who could blow up a plane...............
JJ4, Profiling works GREAT, and has for over 40 years.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 2:06pm.
On an airline that has the GUTS to profile AL EL Airlines.
The most scrutinized passengers? Single females, seams moslem boy friends give then gifts that blow up. NO JOKE...
You Didn't Build That.
It's true
Submitted by ckc1227 on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 3:18pm.
Israel has a massive problem with blue-eyed white guys blowing up their planes because of their profiling strategy.
JJ4 is right,
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 5:45pm.
"We need to do all we can to prevent something" - Like listen in on telephone conversations to and from know/suspected terrorist. Of course in this administration's Homeland Security Department the terrorist are every where because a potential terrorist is anyone to the right of the administration - IMO.
recruiting non-muslims
Submitted by jdlybrand on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 5:48pm.
JJ, I'm thinking it's gonna be tough for them to find a gray haired grandmother from Boise to buy into that 72 virgins thing.
"What a revoltin' development this is!"
Chester Riley
hey Jesse
Submitted by donabernathy on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 5:51pm.
I haven't seen a study. But I'll bet ya . Most terrorists eat something 24 hours before they do their evil. Lets ban food. That can probably prevent something.
roflmao
Well then, how
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 1:11am.
about we let the TSA, or the State Police, or the local sheriff or local police stop you on the street, and pat you down for no reason, JJ? After all, it'll prevent "something". Even if you aren't on your way to the airport, or the train station or the bus terminal. How about if they do it on your way to your parked car, because we know that terrorists use car bombs far more often than they use airplanes as bomb delivery systems? And, you'll "just have to live with it".
How in the name of anything that's sensible can you make the idiotic statement that profiling won't work? It's worked for El Al since they started using it.
Again, media outraged at warrantless eavesdropping BUT..........
Submitted by merly1 on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 1:47pm.
Media not outraged at warrantless sexual assaults......
It IS all about who is in the White House----you know, you dont "have to fly" anymore than
one has to "place a phone call" overseas.......
I, too, am more outraged at
Submitted by yutsnark on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 1:53pm.
I, too, am more outraged at warrantless eavesdropping. First of all, I know when I'm being patted down, but I don't know when my phone is being tapped. Second, an eavesdropper can steal valuable information, but an airport security guard isn't going to find anything useful on my body.
As I understand it,
Submitted by Ken Shepherd on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 1:59pm.
As I understand it, warrantless wiretaps were directed at calls to and from known terror suspects overseas. It's not like your call to grandma in Toledo was being intently listened to for fun by some NSA analyst in Ft. Meade. That's an incredible waste of time and resources.
If you want a government job wasting time and resources, you go into TSA, not the NSA, CIA, or FBI, who have to be far more selective about the phone convos they have to suffer through.
People don't get that
Submitted by jon_torlin on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 2:17pm.
I try to tell people the same thing, but the reaction I usually get is the effect of putting fingers in their ears going "lalalalala can't hear you!"
Because of reactions like that, we end up with bastardized forms that have no relation to anything. I deliberately left that as a broad coverage as there are a lot of things that's been bastardized in the last couple of years, including the unemployment rate and health care. Of course the most recent example to be bastardized is the so-called security at the airports.
So many things are getting shot to hell, what's next?
-Jon
You're right, Jon. The Left
Submitted by Newsbusterbrown on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 2:27pm.
You're right, Jon. The Left will never concede your point, because they would rather use the warrantless phone taps to beat up conservatives with than tell the truth.
“There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
Apples and oranges
Submitted by UltraC on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 3:19pm.
Let's not call the wiretaps "warrantless", since their application, a lawyer (I'm not one) could argue, would not merit a warrant because the SCOTUS has ruled that there is no potential 4th-amendment violation if the information captured from the tap is not used to prosecute an individual in a court of law. From what I understand, the Bush administration intended the info gained from the taps to set national security policy. Their focus was on an external, non-citizen threat. Had anyone been <i>prosecuted</i> with that information and the administration did not first obtain a warrant, even from the FISA court, there might be a case to accuse them of 4th-amendment violations.
We'll have to wait for the TSA pat-downs to get challenged in court, but ask yourselves this: If a police officer patted you down on the street, wouldn't the officer need probable cause? And unlike the wiretaps, where to my knowledge, no one was prosecuted, do you think if you were carrying a weapon or explosives that were discovered in the search, you would simply be denied access to the airplane? No, you would be arrested and prosecuted based on the search. Unless the TSA obtains explicit consent from everyone for the X-ray or pat-downs, or the passengers explicitly acknowledge it is a condition of boarding an aircraft, the terrorists, should they be caught, need only hire a slick defense lawyer whilst the vast majority of law-abiding citizens are inconvencied and in some cases humiliated.
Actually, what the
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 6:10pm.
Touch My Junk Administration is doing, is NOT a pat-down, it's a full body search. The SCOTUS held, in Terry v. Ohio, that a police officer can do a pat-down of a suspect if he believes that the suspect is armed, for his own protection. The pat-down is done to the person's outer clothing, if they have a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is armed. What the TMJ is doing is a full search, absent any probable cause that the searchee is, or has, or will do anything wrong.
The underwear bomber boarded his flight in, I believe, Amsterdam, so, I can assume that the Obama administration is applying immense diplomatic pressure to the Dutch to force them to institute searches of every, single passenger who boards a flight there? Richard Reid boarded his flight in London, I believe. So, then, the Obama administration is doing the same to the British? Well, going by his past history of dealings with the British, I'm sure it would give Obama great pleasure to try to force the British to do the full body searches.
And, I'm sure that the Arkansas Double-Wide, aka Hillary, is pressuring every Islamic country in the world to search each and every passenger leaving on any international flight, right?
Quick Question UpNorth
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 11/25/2010 - 2:51am.
In regards to your first paragraph. I probably missed this in the thread somewhere but I am not sure that Terry v. Ohio applies to the TSA (TMJ as you say) since I have no doubt that there is some very fine legalese involved when you purchase an airline ticket. I can tell you that the best way get around any legal issues for LEO's on the streets is simply asking an individual (that you have made legal contact with) if you can conduct a search. I am sure the TMJ Admin. simply has the tickets say that by making this purchase you are consenting to being searched yadda yadda. In effect, rights are not being violated because you have told them you waive them. As I said, this may have been addressed and false.
Sentry, I only brought up Terry
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 11/25/2010 - 3:02am.
to differentiate between a "pat down search" and a "full body search". What the TSA is conducting are full body searches, and as near as I can tell, they lack probable cause to do that. The LSM has gotten away with describing this as a pat down, it isn't. And, believe me, I'm well aware of the "legal contact" and asking to conduct a pat down.
I checked the last ticket I bought to travel by plane, there was nothing on it about giving up my rights under the Fourth Amendment. I don't know what the current tickets may say in the fine(unreadable) print, now. And, you're probably right about the "very fine legalese" , but I don't think the SCOTUS has given the TSA carte-blanche to violate the constitution.
Hey Yut, if you'd stop
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 11/25/2010 - 3:03am.
either calling terrorists, or accepting their phone calls, I'd bet that you wouldn't have to worry about, or be "outraged" at warrantless eavesdropping. I guess you're just ok with the Fourth Amendment when it applies to telephones, and not when it applies to your person?
And, really, they won't find "anything useful" on your body? Think about that statement.
Upnorth, you raise two
Submitted by yutsnark on Fri, 11/26/2010 - 4:09am.
Upnorth, you raise two issues.
Regarding the first: I now that the phone eavesdropping is supposed to be limited to highly suspicious overseas calls. But since I don't know whether my phone is being tapped, or when, or by whom -- and no warrant has been obtained -- on what basis can I accept such assurances.
Regarding the second: Touche. You got me man. Anything I say will just stick my foot in deeper.
So, I take it
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 11/26/2010 - 12:48pm.
that you don't mind the violations as long as it's "doing something" visible, but anything done covertly to protect Americans is over the line, because you haven't been introduced to the one who listens to the conversations?
If you want an affidavit filed in a U.S. District Court to cover the warrants, how is the end result any different than the NY Times running the information on page 1? And, maybe the warrant was obtained, a FISA warrant? Again, making those whose calls are being monitored privy to the info that they are being monitored makes what kind of sense?
Right. I don't trust a
Submitted by yutsnark on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 4:38pm.
Right. I don't trust a government that operates in secret without oversight. Regarding the airport searches, I have no opinion -- because I don't know whether they are really needed for national security. I've heard opinions, but no persuasive evidence for either side.
Remember, jondelwiche...
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 1:59pm.
The TSA "doesn't consider" it to be sexual assault.
Doesn't that make you feel better?
The real issue is about the
Submitted by Free Stinker on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 2:28pm.
The real issue is about the 4th ammendment and what constitutes an "unreasonable search". Tapping international calls to suspected foreign terrorists - reasonable. Having TSA take naked pictures of you, or being molested? Galactically Unreasonable./// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
FAIR WARNING!!!
Submitted by texasborngranny on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 3:56pm.
In order to avoid having TSA personnel PMP (pat my privates) or subject myself to x-rays, I an overweight grandma, will be wearing a leotard and tights through the airport.
And they will not be demure black, nope, they'll be PINK. So if you see something that looks like a 5 foot tall blob of bubble gum.............. Avert your eyes! It's not a pretty picture.
Double Standard
Submitted by Funbowhunter on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 5:19pm.
Aren't these the same reporters who were jaw-dropping in aghast from enhanced interrogations? The same tactics the TSA are using on innocent children and grandmas?
Egad, they're waterboarding
Submitted by yutsnark on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 4:18am.
Egad, they're waterboarding my granny?
What if the government got
Submitted by yutsnark on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 2:02am.
What if the government got out of the airplane security business, and let it be handled by the individual airlines? Then, customers could decide for themselves whether they want to go with the carrier that does body searches, or the one that does not.
That would be great, privatize them.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 3:19pm.
TSA is able to trash the private airlines, at any time, for any reason, by throttling the passenger flow rate to the gates. With no economic consequences ever.
TSA would still be there getting paid even if no airlines were ever taking off at that particular airport.
Ohh how many terrorists has TSA caught?
You Didn't Build That.