New TSA Procedures Are a Joke

Look, everyone knows that the new "enhanced" security procedures the TSA just rolled out are a joke. They've just said that children under 12 will be exempted from pat-downs... even if they refuse to pass through the full body scanners?

Already TSA has tweaked its patdown policy in recent days, agreeing to exclude children under 12 and pilots. Pistole issued a statement later on Sunday in which he said the TSA is constantly evaluating ways to adjust its screening methods.

A simple Google search shows that child suicide bombers are a real threat and not merely hypothetical, so why the exemption?

Plus, security expert Brian Jenkins says that a full body scanner may not have caught Abdulmutallab's underwear bomb.

And, you know, I’m not entirely certain that a body scanner would have detected Abdulmutallab’s bomb.

Maybe it’s not even likely?

I don’t want to get into technical details, but it’s not certain.

Bruce Schneier calls it security theater and all the evidence suggests that he's right.

Q So what kind of attack will this [body scanners] prevent, that otherwise might be successful?

A There are two kinds of hijackers. There's the lone nutcase, like someone who will bring a gun onto a plane because, dammit, they're going to take the whole plane down with them. Any pre-9-11 airport security would catch a person like that.

The second kind is the well-planned, well-financed Al Qaeda-like plot. And nothing can be done to stop someone like that.

Q Has there been a case since 9/11 of an attempted hijacker being thwarted by airport security?

A None that we've heard of. The TSA will say, "Oh, we're not allowed to talk about successes." That's actually bullsh*t. They talk about successes all the time. If they did catch someone, especially during the Bush years, you could be damned sure we'd know about it. And the fact that we didn't means that there weren't any. Because the threat was imaginary. It's not much of a threat. As excess deaths go, it's just way down in the noise. More than 40,000 people die each year in car crashes. It's 9/11 every month. The threat is really overblown.

Schneier is ignoring the fact that the national impact of a successful mid-air terrorist attack would be astronomical in comparison to auto accidents, but I am still inclined to believe his assertion that our escalating security practices do little to mitigate the risk.

The real way to reduce our risks is to take the fight to the terrorists, as we've been doing. Unfortunately, it appears that our limited war against Al Qaeda is not leading to total victory. It's hard to imagine Rome or Britain at their heights tolerating the kind of ongoing threats that America approaches so timidly today.

And while we're thinking of new options, why not consider "Israelification"?

Five security layers down: you now finally arrive at the only one which Ben-Gurion Airport shares with Pearson — the body and hand-luggage check.

"But here it is done completely, absolutely 180 degrees differently than it is done in North America," Sela said.

"First, it's fast — there's almost no line. That's because they're not looking for liquids, they're not looking at your shoes. They're not looking for everything they look for in North America. They just look at you," said Sela. "Even today with the heightened security in North America, they will check your items to death. But they will never look at you, at how you behave. They will never look into your eyes ... and that's how you figure out the bad guys from the good guys."

That's the process — six layers, four hard, two soft. The goal at Ben-Gurion is to move fliers from the parking lot to the airport lounge in a maximum of 25 minutes.

When was the last time you got from your car to your gate in 25 minutes at a US airport?

Here's a great story: TSA orders man to put his clothes back on so he can be groped properly.

When a San Diego man opted out of security screening using the Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) at Lindbergh Field Friday, he stripped down to his underwear in an attempt to avoid the pat-down procedures. ...

Through a statement released by his attorney Sunday night, Wolanyk said "TSA needs to see that I'm not carrying any weapons, explosives, or other prohibited substances, I refuse to have images of my naked body viewed by perfect strangers, and having been felt up for the first time by TSA the week prior (I travel frequently) I was not willing to be molested again."

Wolanyk's attorney said that TSA requested his client put his clothes on so he could be patted down properly but his client refused to put his clothes back on. He never refused a pat down, according to his attorney.

So... how is a pat-down more effective than a man actually removing his clothing?

Here's SNL's take (HT: NC):

Bonus question: What's the connection between strip-searching children and protecting terrorists from coercive interrogation? Answer: TSA chief John Pistole!

Pistole and Valerie E. Caproni were the two FBI officials who approved a memo laying out the FBI's policy on the limits to the interrogation of captives taken during the United States' war on terror.[3] The memo was from the FBI's General Counsel, to all offices, explaining that FBI officials were not allowed to engage in coercive interrogations; FBI officials were not allowed to sit in on coercive interrogations conducted by third parties; FBI officials were required to immediately report any instances of suspected coercive interrogation up the FBI chain of command.

In Pistole's worldview, traveling children should be strip-searched and terrorists should be given lawyers and questioned politely.

How about the connection between illegal immigration and the TSA?

Reader Ed Stephens emails:

Remember how not long ago the President was so upset about the possibility of people being stopped and asked for “their papers” while going to get ice cream? It was the height of living in a police state. Yet we’ve not heard a peep out of him while TSA goons grope the general public (including nuns and little kids) on the way to grandma’s house.

If we are expected to put up with this, asking to see “your papers” suddenly seems a less onerous request.

“Your papers, please” is disturbing, but “your testicles, please” is worse. . . . .

Regular American citizens can be subjected to anything, but please don't inconvenience criminals in any way.