TSA begins sinister “Phase Two” of Operations
Yesterday I flew from Maryland to Milwaukee, where my wife and I are visiting family for the week. I was surprised to discover that I now have to pass through two machines (the air blower as well as the metal detector), not just one, and that my belt buckle now sets off metal detectors. I don’t have one of those giant ornamental belt buckles beloved of Texans, just a normal belt buckle. Yet now I have to take my belt off, along with my shoes. It wasn’t always this way, so I assume they’ve upped the sensitivity of the metal detectors.
Another machine to pass through, and another article of clothing to remove. I’ve seen the air blowers before, but they used to be for special screening. Now they’re standard, at least at Reagan National Airport (it’s been a while since I flew through there, usually using Dulles).
And I’ve noticed that whereas the screening area used to be roped off, with exiting passengers walking to the right of the ropes and people preparing to board going to the right of the ropes, now the screening area is separated from the exit lane by large glass or plexiglass walls. I don’t really care about ropes vs. plexiglass, but it’s strange to see the way that the apparatus keeps growing and evolving, taking on more intricate and expensive forms.
Seeing the way that the screening procedures multiply, and the way that the footprint of the TSA keeps growing, I wonder just how large this metastasizing tumor of the security state will grow to be. Will the metal button on my jeans eventually set off the metal detector? Will the zipper set it off? Will I have to take off my pants then?
Usually I grumble something about how the Russians used to have to pass through checkpoints and show their papers, and they knew that if they caused trouble their names could wind up on lists. But I don’t grumble too loudly, because I don’t want my name to wind up on the no-fly list.
The TSA may not be the most dangerous aspect of our new security state, but it is by far the most obnoxious, with an incredibly rude staff and metastasizing mass that acts as a choke-point for all of our travels. We hates them! Oh, yes, we hates them! We do! Forever!
Comment by Belle —
April 8, 2007 @ 10:46 am
I was travelling with my then-two-year-old, and fairly pregnant at the time. the TSA people wouldn’t let her walk through with her (small) teddy bear. wails and gnashing of teeth, and I was trying to get everything through the x-ray machine (including my car-seat/stroller). god but I just wanted to kill those motherfuckers. she still complains about it. “they’re stupid if they think cranberry is full of guns and bombs; he’s only got plastic beans inside.” the thing I really have to bite my tongue from saying in the huge snaking lines is, “boy, doesn’t it just seem like this would be a great place to set off a bomb stuffed with ball-bearings?”
Comment by Thoreau —
April 8, 2007 @ 11:30 am
Belle-
That’s what scares me the most. Although I’m not a Malkinesque “John Doe” who believes that there’s a terrorist hiding under every rock, I suspect that somewhere, somehow, some day, some guy will set off an improvised bomb. In a large enough country over a long enough time frame, that’s not a bad bet. Especially if the country in question is fomenting chaos and inciting zealots who believe that they’ll go to heaven for killing people.
When this happens, a long security line would be a really juicy target.
This terrifies me. Not because I fear the bomber himself. No, statistically, I’m far more likely to get into a car crash driving to the airport. But I’m terrified of what my fellow countrymen will do, or allow the government to do, in response.
God help us if that ever happens.
Comment by Davebo —
April 8, 2007 @ 11:42 am
You want to eliminate all the hassles of boarding an aircraft these days?
Simple. Eliminate carry on luggage. It was a great idea when originally proposed over 20 years ago purely out of safety concerns and it’s an even better idea today.
Comment by Madeline F —
April 8, 2007 @ 12:03 pm
Oh, sure, Davebo, I’ve got pockets big enough to hold a change of underwear and deodorant and a bottle of water and a diabetes kit and some snacks and a book. I look like a stay-puft mashmallow woman, but I can do it. Lots of people aren’t so lucky.
Comment by Leonard —
April 8, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
Eliminate carry-on luggage? Useful, I’m sure, but the real problem is that the passengers have brains and opposable thumbs. I’m not saying people should be forced to get a lobotomy before flying — that should be optional. But they certainly don’t need the use of their hands and brains on an airplane. People should only fly either fully sedated, or else in straightjackets. This is America! We’re for freedom and choices — you should be allowed to choose either one, right after handing off your luggage.
Comment by Nell —
April 8, 2007 @ 12:13 pm
Davebo, that would pretty much eliminate the possibility of flying with young children.
Comment by Nell —
April 8, 2007 @ 12:19 pm
Thoreau, in support of your ‘metastasizing’ point, the no-fly list itself, assuming it has some relationship to the “terror watch list”, has quadrupled in the last few years. No one seems to be able to get off it without going to court (which activists I admire and respect have done; see the ‘no-fly follies’ sidebar at the link).
Comment by AC —
April 8, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
Don’t forget about backscattering machines. They’re only in use at Phoenix Sky Harbor right now, but if they seem useful, I imagine they’ll spread.
Comment by 71LesPaul —
April 8, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
Belle, you’re a real sweetheart. Do you kiss your baby with that mouth? Yikes.
As for the gripes about the long lines in airports in the post 9/11 world, thats kind of like Rosie O’Donnell waiting for a hot-pocket to cook in the microwave screaming “Hurry!!”
Keep in mind one small thing folks. The TSA has become such a monstrosity and the security lines so long because the idea that the TSA might just screen passengers based on empirical risk factors was demonized a long time ago as unacceptable “racial profiling”. So to not offend anyones sensibilities, every single passenger must be treated equally as a potential religious fanatic mass murderer. Even the 80 year old grandma walking with a cane and a 30 year old mom traveling with three young children.
The nightmare at the checkpoints is our own doing. But hey, we can all feel good that the system doesn’t profile. Thats a good thing right?
Comment by Thoreau —
April 8, 2007 @ 2:07 pm
I’m not sure that profiling is the answer. Leaving aside the wide range of skin tones, facial appearances, hair colors, and whatnot associated with different terrorist groups around the world, leaving aside the fact that there are female suicide bombers, and leaving aside the fact that terrorists have been known to hide bombs on children in various times and places, there are two facts to consider:
1) The undercover inspectors have apparently been getting guns, bombs, and knives past the TSA. So what good does it do to perform an ineffective search on people who fit a profile?
2) The simple fact of the matter is that air travel will always involve some lines, if for no other reason than to check luggage and get tickets and whatnot. Sure, electronic ticketing is changing some of that, but there will still be a line to check in your luggage. I doubt that air travel will ever be like catching a bus. Even if it were, bus stops get crowded right before the bus arrives.
So there will be lines, and once you have a line, you have a bunch of people clustered together for a bomber to hit.
I don’t know what to do, but I don’t think the TSA is the answer, regardless of whom the single out.
Comment by Bruce Baugh —
April 8, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
I wish I had a catchy name for this, but I think there’s a tyranny quotient that’s the sum of intrusiveness and uselessness. What makes the TSA’s stuff rank high on that scale is that (as Thoreau’s just been saying) it doesn’t work. Certainly it generates no reward comparable to the cost in time, convenience, and dignity it imposes on travelers.
Racial profiling would work if you were willing to commit to the premise that there’ll be another Timothy McVeigh or Aum Shinrikyo ever threatening the US. And if you’re quite sure that the Tamil Tigers, the secular communist group that leads the world in suicide bombings, will never attempt anything here. And like that. I personally am not wiling to gamble on that, so I prefer not setting up Flying While Arab as grounds for extra scrutiny.
Comment by MMGood —
April 8, 2007 @ 2:56 pm
Dude, 71LesPaul:
Yeah, profiling, ’cause it’s not like the second largest act of terrorism in the U.S. was committed by a blond-haired white guy.
Oh, wait . . .
Comment by Grant Gould —
April 8, 2007 @ 3:03 pm
Once some loon blows up a security checkpoint line, you’ll need to go through a metal detector and air blower in order to get to the place to wait in line to go through the metal detector and air blower. That will solve all of the problems quite nicely.
Comment by graemeblake —
April 8, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
Seems to me the best solution would be to secure the cockpit. If unauthorized access to the cockpit was denied, then you could not have a repeat of 9/11. I don’t think that would be that hard. As has been mentioned above, there already is the chance of a bomb before boarding the flight, so in that case the possibility of a bomb or hijacking on board the flight would not be scary.
Not to say you wouldn’t still have some security precautions…but at the least they could be scaled back to whatever level was appropriate pre-9/11, to deter the usual hijackers.
That would make much more sense than racial profiling. The number of people who might do such an act is really tiny, and even if they are more likely to be arab that still leaved 99.9999999% of arabs who just want to fly…doesn’t seem a just or efficient system to pull them all aside.
Cockpit security could include a system where a passcode was required, the pilot had to confirm entry, and there was a visual check. Something along those basic lines and you don’t really have to worry about box cutters/nail clippers any more.
Comment by Robby K. —
April 8, 2007 @ 3:08 pm
Grant:
Are you crazy? That leaves the line for the security checkpoint for the security checkpoint completely unprotected! We need to get a security checkpoint for the line to the security checkpoint for the security checkpoint, stat!
Comment by Karen —
April 8, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
Belle, in 2005 my husband, me, our then 3 and 6 year old sons, Steve’s brother and mother, and brother’s 7 and 10 year olds flew from Austin to Crested Butte, Colorado for a ski trip. Going up and coming back, ALL of us were “orange-carded,” meaning our baggage was unpacked and checked, and we were required to stand in a special, marked off area, having removed all coats, sweaters, shoes, socks, and belts while our carry-ons were screened, including some kind of wipe test for illegal chemicals. Now, I was forty-one and my husband was forty-four, his brother was fifty and his mother was seventy. I also need to point out that I’m red-headed and green-eyed. Either this was just so the TSA guys could get some practice or to prove they really don’t do racial profiling, I’m not sure. All I really know is that it was the most astonishingly annoying experience of my adult life. The plane to Colorado from Austin also left at 5:45 a.m., so we were at the airport at FOUR O’CLOCK IN THE MORNING. Did I mention the small children? Who were deprived of their blankeys and loveys? Passengers made a point of waving at us, and saying loudly “I feel so much safter knowing those desparados have been stopped,” with obvious eye-rolls. At least one TSA guy was overheard saying “this is such bullshit.” (He also entertained our sons by showing them how the wand made noise when it passed over metal, so I have to be grateful.) When we got back and I shared this tale, the universal response was “What profile do YOU fit?!!?”
I haven’t been subjected to that particular bit of fun since, but returning from Park City, Utah last month the TSA seized my half-used tube of toothpaste, because the original tube contained more than three ounces. Note the “half-used” part. I think from now on I’m going to pack at least on utterly absurd item in my carry-on just so they can sieze it. My first thought was Preparation H or K-Y Jelly. Any other suggestions?
Comment by McMartin —
April 8, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
Once they put in the air blowers, the security lines got faster for me, because it was much less frequent for them to chemically search people’s baggages with swabs.
And those searches had been going on pre-9/11, at least for me. (Even if you can fit a week’s clothing in your carry-on, don’t; it apparently takes them upwards of 15 years to forgive you.)
So I actually like the air blowers; they’re a more efficient way of doing what they’ve already been doing.
What I can’t abide is the liquid restrictions. The logic apparently goes like this:
(a) ZOMG TERRORISTS ARE TRYING TO BLOW US UP WITH SPORTS DRINKS!!!!11!!!
(b) Ban all liquids on planes, even stuff sold inside the security checkpoint
(c) Repeated, highly sarcastic demonstrations of how stupid this is, how the sports drinks were hiding volatile chemicals, how you could mix it up in the bathroom as long as you could stay in there for three hours with nobody noticing the fumes, and no turbulence hit, and you weren’t over come by the fumes yourself, etc, etc, etc, and then you might be able to kill yourself and mmmmaybe injure the person next to you;
(d) TSA, in the face of a “threat” that is *admittedly totally nonexistent*, magnanimously decides to allow unusably small quantities of material to come on board, even though it’s just as safe unrestricted.
Comment by Karen —
April 8, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
I’d also like to note that one of the worst terrorist attacks in Europe occurred in 1987 at the El AL ticket counter in the Rome airport. Everyone who has pointed out that the long lines for the TSA checkpoints are beautiful invitations to bombers is correct. The ugly and unavoidable truth is that so long as there’s at least one evil lunatic hellbent on blowing up somebody, any crowd is vulnerable. Now, we could do our best to marginalize the lunatics, or we can all install security cameras in our underwear. In the latter case, we have to depend on other humans actually combing through all those mountains of information just to find the one single bit of useful information. I really don’t see that happening.
Comment by Davebo —
April 8, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
Yet another perk!
Comment by Thoreau —
April 8, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
Not to mention that even if you only restrict your attention to Arabs, Persians, the various ethnic groups of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and perhaps Chechens, once you go beyond the stereotypes you’re dealing with an incredibly wide range of skin tones, facial bone structures, hair colors, etc.
A few weeks ago I saw a picture in the paper of some sort of protest in Cairo. I kid you not, there was a guy with red hair and freckles. The Middle East is the ultimate genetic melting pot.
Factor in other Muslim regions of the world, and various non-Muslim terrorists, and profiling is useless.
As was said above, all you can do is:
1) Secure the cockpit. I’ve heard mixed reviews on whether we’ve done a good job of this, but it doesn’t seem like an insurmountable task.
2) Try to marginalize the crazies while bringing everybody else into society. The US actually does this pretty well with most immigrants, at least compared with Europe.
3) Accept that in a free and open society there will always be some sort of opening for a crazy to set off a bomb in a crowded area.
That last one is the hard part. It’s never easy to accept that high-profile bad things might happen from time to time. Yet we have no problem get into cars, which routinely crash. (And even with cars, everybody freaked out over the fairly rare but dramatic SUV roll-overs, while ignoring the fact that collisions are the most common killer for all car types.)
Comment by Tom —
April 8, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
The TSA is another creation from the Bush criminal enterprise. Just like the vast prisons being built in the midwest. Just like the billion dollar a week vanity war. All those components were created, by design from the PNAC crowd to continually remind you of your need to be afraid. They want you to notice all of the ’security’ methods because they know some of you (sadly) believe in their lies. If you cared for the United States, you would investigate exactly which companies are getting the large (and unbid) contracts. Then, if you care, you start looking at who those companies are giving money to, or what their individual philosophies are relative to the GWOT. Then you start to notice a very small collection of companies whose main beneficiaries have been GOP higher ups or associates. No folks. You are all getting inconvenienced simply to provide an illusion of safety, all the while providing huge profits to that small collection of companies.
Comment by Thoreau —
April 8, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
On the bright side, Tom, Lincoln Burrows was cleared of all charges.
Comment by Anticorium —
April 8, 2007 @ 6:42 pm
I have a hypothetical question for 71LesPaul.
Under which of these two cases would terrorists find it easier to sneak explosives onto a plane and blow it up:
1) Every single terrorist agent they might send faces a chance of being searched and having their bombs discovered; or
2) The TSA has given the terrorists a detailed list of exactly which members of their terror cell will not be given a close search?
Comment by Neel Krishnaswami —
April 8, 2007 @ 6:59 pm
Bruce: your point about the Tigers is even better than you said — they invented the tactic of recruiting young women as suicide bombers precisely to evade profiling attempts. That’s how they managed to kill Rajiv Gandhi, the prime minister of India. Terrorists are evil, not stupid.
Comment by Jim Henley —
April 8, 2007 @ 8:35 pm
But the purpose of profiling isn’t to be efficient or productive. The purpose or profiling is to make Arab travelers eat sh;t. It can do that very well.
Comment by Nell —
April 8, 2007 @ 10:04 pm
Davebo, I was almost expecting your response. Ha. Ha.
Comment by graemeblake —
April 8, 2007 @ 10:39 pm
“But the purpose of profiling isn’t to be efficient or productive. The purpose or profiling is to make Arab travelers eat sh;t. It can do that very well.”
lol, well I don’t disagree with that. What I wrote above was directed at “71LesPaul”, in case he was actually open to persuasion and merely misguided in thinking that profiling was an efficient way to stop terrorism. As opposed to some sort of troll. Profiling by race is an indeed ugly thing on many levels.
Comment by Nell —
April 9, 2007 @ 10:31 am
More information about how The List metastasizes.
Comment by Thomas Nephew —
April 11, 2007 @ 11:43 am
And yet more information on how The List’s uses metastasize. (WaPo, last November)