WaPo Columnist to Upset Air Travelers: 'Grow Up, America'
Calling the uproar over the new TSA screening procedures "overblown" and "immature," Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus praised the majority of Americans polled who are okay with the body scanners at airports and scolded those who stand opposed to the searches.
"'Don't tough my junk' may be the cri-de-coeur – cri de crotch? – of the post-9/11 world, but it's an awfully childish one," the columnist writes in her Nov 24 column for the Washington Post. Marcus argues that the new procedures are simply a "marginal invasion of privacy" when compared to the devastating consequences of a terrorist attack that could happen without them.
However, Marcus admits that the new body scanners are "uncomfortably graphic," some TSA workers may "go too far" in the pat-downs, and the procedures might not be fully successful.
Referring to whether the techniques work, Marcus writes "whether this is real security or security theater is to some extent unknowable; the plot deterred cannot be measured. We do know that, without the enhanced imaging, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab got on a plane with enough explosives to blow it up."
In the next sentence she freely admits that the new techniques might not work all the time. "The new screening might not catch every would-be bomber," she writes, but it could "be useful in the interim" before the terrorists attack again. Of course, the interim since the Christmas Day bomber stands at 11 months and counting.
However, since there is "not a less intrusive alternative," Marcus writes, the American public should endure the inconvenience for the sake of national security. Besides, she argues, the body scanning images are viewed by total strangers at the TSA and promptly deleted. Only if passengers "balk" at the scanners must they succumb to the pat-down she admits is "intrusive."
Yet Marcus tries to soothe the uproar over these pat-downs, pointing out that people expose their bodies to medical personnel. "I undergo the pat-down, if I must, for the greater public benefit," she brags.
- Matt Hadro's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Note to Liberals: Never try to
Submitted by Bruzilla on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 1:31pm.
Note to Liberals: Never try to play the fear card. You suck at it!
Why is the TSA even doing this?
Submitted by Red Jeep on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 1:36pm.
Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the companies that own the planes?
If one company gets a lot of planes blown up do to lax security no one will fly them.
Why should the taxpayers be paying for the security of privately owned planes?
Seems like another camel's nose under the tent.
Define..
Submitted by CommanderTaya on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 1:54pm.
..."marginal invasion of privacy," please,? Just one little pat down, one little porno screening and no big deal, right? It doesn't stop here in the airports. It will spread out into the rail system, subways, and even ( God Forbid), checkpoints for automobiles. I believe they call it a police state. Intrusive government is the end of liberty..........one little piece at a time. Control of the masses is power. The Bamster knows this and is just waiting for the pieces to fall into place.
Big Sis
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 4:57pm.
has already said she wants to expand this into rail and boats. Next, we'll have to call the TMJ(Touch my Junk) Administration before we leave the house, so they can send an agent to pat us down and inspect our car. After all, there have been far more car bombers than plane hijackers.
And, Judge Napolitano, not to be confused with Big Sis, said this morning on Beck's show that there has already been an instance of images from full body scans being shared around the Federal court house in Baltimore, images sent from a TSA employee to a U.S. Marshall. I don't know the source of his information, so I'm not sure if it's 100% accurate. After all, if it did happen, the media would be all over it./sarc.
Check back with me, Ruthie,
Submitted by TC Lynch on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 2:02pm.
when EVERY passenger has to go through this "enhanced procedure." Let's see where the polling goes when it's an automatic requirement for everyone, not just the indiscriminately chosen few who have to endure this violation of their Constitutional rights.
Ironic
Submitted by kch50428 on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 2:08pm.
How the same people who think nothing of molestation at an airport at the hands of the government will do nothing to protect our southern US border.
They are out of control.
Submitted by ahusser on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 2:21pm.
Several years ago TSA subject my then 84 year old father to a body search in public when the magnetometer was set off by a catheter. Like most bureaucracies they lack common sense and discretion. An article in today's AOL says it all: TSA Patdown leaves Passenger Covered in Urine.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
AZ law invasive, TSA isn't?
Submitted by esperanza4 on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 2:34pm.
Common sense security is welcome: profile people w/ backgrounds or travel plans or other items that are consistent w/previous terrorist attacks or plots here and abroad. That would require profiling. I am someone who would likely be asked a question due to my skin color, name, etc. I don't mind being asked something. It would also require a system where the public is given notice of their assistance in the process: not given a new internal body search w/o warning by federal govt. workers w/o consistency of analysis. Grow up Washington Post - is this system Janet put into place logical? why didn't Bush do it sooner (oh yeah, they found it excessive & not productive enough)? what other nation uses it w/success (none)? what does Israel do to stay so safe? what does the UK do to stay so safe?
Moreover...the same media outlets that screamed at the limited and minor wiretapping upon known terrorist haven travelers or callers, that complained about library card searches, that yelled about Bush and the Patriot Act overreaching into our lives, say, oh, just bend over, and say thank you to the TSA & Obama for the physical groping at airports of children and elderly women.
If we were asking young men of middle eastern or asian or latin nationality, who travel one way without luggage, who act antsy in line or their seats, who have attachment to radical imans, and asking women in burkas and w/face coverings to remove them or take a search like the other women must do, I might be fine w/it. But, we're not doing that, we're excusing them. Then, search 8 year old pants.
Grow up Washington Post - apply some consistency, sanity, and practicality to the TSA system - and do a better job of yes, profiling passengers, and I'll rethink my opposition to the full body search and the body scans that do not detect explosives.
As we see the Obama Administration already seeking ways to expand this invasive practice to other areas of our lives. What happened to unlawful search and seizure? I can't ask an illegal alien for documents, I can't buy Nyquil w/o being asked for ID, I can't go to Disneyland w/o opening my purse and backpack....but, I can't be asked for ID to vote in the USA and I have an entire party that wants to have an open border w/Mexico w/o ID requirements. But, to fly to Phoenix, I gotta bend over and say thank you. That makes zero sense.
Have you ever seen Ruth
Submitted by Barack_must_go..... on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 2:53pm.
Have you ever seen Ruth Marcus over at the Washington Post? This new proceedure is about as close to being felt up by a man or woman this cow has come in the past 20 years........actually ever.
I bet she probably buys tickets, just for the thrill of it all, never even getting on the plane.
Face it, when you look like an older, fatter Rachel Maddow like Ruthie does, it costs more to buy what she needs on the street, if she can even find any takers, putting her way ahead of the game with this new airport deal.
She can probably even write a portion of her guilty pleasure off on her WaPo expense account.
Oh Ruth you dirty, dirty little thing you.
Barack_Must_Go.....
Fast forward to February 2013
Submitted by Big Wally on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 4:05pm.
What will dear Ruth's stance be on this when there is a Republican in the White House?
Yep, sure is funny how when a
Submitted by ant on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 8:36pm.
Yep, sure is funny how when a Republican is in office, tracking large sums of money to and from suspect countries is a big affront to liberty and how degrading it was for terrorist prisoners to be photographed naked. But harrass and grope the American people or bombard them with suspect terahertz radiation? Hey no problem! The islamist must be wetting their skirts laughing at how much freedom they've successfully taken from us courtesy of our own government.
Rush said something that struck me the other day. A number of people in leadership positions now were the same 60's rebels who called the authorities pigs back then, but now that they are the authority, the people are now considered pigs.
Upset Air Travelers to WaPo: Bite Me!
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 9:29pm.
Hay, WaPo employees, I dare YOU to travel through the same airport security screening that the majority of American must pass through. How about it, are you willing to give up your exemptions to "normal" screenings? You know, the exemptions you thought were a great idea about 6 or 7 years ago when YOU had to go though screening that were far less personal? The exemptions you fought for, commented ad nauseum for, and, after stirring up a lot of public furor, actually received! What's that, no takers? Humm........
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Ruth Marcus
Submitted by packman on Thu, 11/25/2010 - 9:10am.
is about as far left as you can get. I see her columns regurgitated in my local newspaper regularly (compliments of AP). You only have to read a little of her tripe to discover this woman is so slanted to the left that any resemblance to objectivity or responsible journalism is as far away from her as the distant planets are from the earth. Not surprising then to have her support the "party line" -- or would that be the "regime?" in her suggestions that we all just lay down and take whatever the "government" decides is best for us. What crap. She's just like all the other liberals with her mantra of "we know what's best for you, so just shut up, bend over, and kiss your butt goodbye," as they slip on another pair of blue rubber gloves.
"...Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread..." ~Thomas Jefferson
Circular Argument
Submitted by Cappmann1962 on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 10:55am.
"...Marcus praised the majority of Americans polled who are okay with the body scanners at airports..." The majority of Americans don't fly, so why would they care?
Marcus argues that the new procedures are simply a "marginal invasion of privacy" when compared to the devastating consequences of a terrorist attack that could happen without them." No matter how this is spun, it's still a violation of the 4th Amendment. It is a warrantless search with no probable cause. In other words, it's illegal.
However, Marcus admits that the new body scanners are "uncomfortably graphic," some TSA workers may "go too far" in the pat-downs, and the procedures might not be fully successful.
Referring to whether the techniques work, Marcus writes "whether this is real security or security theater is to some extent unknowable; the plot deterred cannot be measured. We do know that, without the enhanced imaging, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab got on a plane with enough explosives to blow it up." This is the crux of the entire argument. No one, with the exception of those who endorrse these procedures, can say if they work or not. There are even informed arguments going both ways on whether Farouk would have been detected by these procedures. And yes, the plot deterred CAN be measured. How many bombs and/or other weapons have been detected by these procedures? On the other hand, how many plots have been stopped or deterred by Israel's airport security, using no invasive scans. but instead using profiling, intelligence info, thorough training, and common sense?
The best thing said in this article is the name comparison - "real security" or "security theater". I'd have to go with the latter...