Thank you for this article. I'm so sick of the nonsense that's been spewed out by conservative pundits on the matter of profiling. What it profiling amounts to is "get everyone darker than a sheet of paper out of line, and force them to go through extra hassle based on their skin color." To everyone who thinks this way, I have two words: jihad Jane. To anyone who thinks that potential terrorists will do profilers the favor of dressing in full-on Muslim garb, take a look at the pictures of the 9/11 hijackers. There is no possible profile; the only way we'll be safe is if we treat all passengers as potentially dangerous. If we don't, it's only a matter of time until we end up with another tragedy like 9/11.

While I sympathise with so many of the author's comments vis-a-vis the security checks which our military personnel undergo, and how we civvies must suck-it-up -- this article nevertheless poorly responds to the concerns most Americans have re: "profiling". Most Americans approve of profiling. Most Americans approve, because profiling makes for common sense security. But the security folks in airports are specifically trained NOT to do such profiling, because the color of one's skin, hair, eyes, clothes, etc, is NOT necessarily an indicator of one's political and religious affinities -- ie if one is a potential terrorist. So all evidence to the contrary, the airport screeners must NOT screen certain folks -- see above -- while they MUST absurdly screen ALL folks. The now notorious strip-search of the 8 year old boy, and the 'required' intimately rude scanning, and the "pat-downs" of millions of ordinary citizens seems to most of Americans misplaced (pace Mr. Carter's assertion that body scanning is favoured by an overwhelming majority of Americans -- where is that figure garnered from?) What Americans want is not RANDOM, yet absolute, unchecked, embarrassing, and ridiculous screening of our travel-wear habits and personal preferences on underwear, and what an 8 year old boy or a 90 year old New England Grandmother posesses, etc. What we want is for Airport Security to start screening those most likely to pose a threat to our security. That means we want profiling, full-on and relentless. Americans want profiling much more than they support body scans. Americans, since 9/11, absolutely support profiling. Whether or not they absolutely support body-scanners (following upon rigid profiling!) is another matter. If Americans were sure that rigid and decisive profiling were assured, would they opt for body scanners as well? Who knows, because profiling is forbidden. And Americans want more Air Marshalls would help. In any event, the issue of profiling and body-scanning reminds one of the dogs used in the movie "Terminator", who sniffed out terminating machines from among the normal human beings. The stakes are, all things being equal, just as high. The dogs BOTH profiled and body-scanned. Interesting.

Joe,

I've been a defense and security analyst for more than thirty years. I've studied terrorism and counterterrorism for a good many of those. My principal objection to TSA is not that its inspections are intrusive, but that their inspections are ineffective, amounting to--as George Will put it--"security theater". That is, nothing TSA does is likely to stop a determined terrorist plot, but does waste a lot of resources that could be applied better in other ways. A good case can be made that TSA creates a false sense of security and actually creates more targets for terrorists in the form of long lines of vulnerable passengers densely queued in the security line. After all, none of the people in the line have been screened, and a couple of guys with exploding backpacks and/or submachine guns could create carnage.

Aside from that, TSA screening is generally capricious and has not proven useful in thwarting real terrorists--though it has proven all too good at humiliating and occasionally terrorizing innocent passengers. The most effective line of defense against terrorists to date has been alert and active airline passengers themselves.

It is also false to characterize what Charles Krauthammer and other have advocated as "racial profiling". Most of them advocate behavioral profiling, which is what Israeli security does. They have built up a very comprehensive taxonomy of behavior and activities that characterize likely terrorists. From the moment a passenger enters the Tel Aviv airport, he is questioned and observed, and not just the perfunctory "Did you pack your own bags?" questions. Those meeting the profile are selected for additional interviews, which might--ultimately--result in a bag and body search. Note that while Israel uses metal detectors, it does not use--and has no intention of using--full body scanners. Nor does it comprehensively search every passenger who comes through the door.

Now, you may not like it, but your basic terrorist to date has been a single Muslim male, aged 20-30, traveling alone, without checked bags, on a one way ticket, usually paid for in cash. Most have visited countries of dubious reputation, such as Yemen, Egypt and Afghanistan. Yes, there has been a spate of home-grown terrorists, but while these do not meet the criterion of Middle Eastern appearance, they do meet the other factors.

Yet we do not focus on such persons, but in the name of fairness, subject all to the same degree of scrutiny, pulling people out of the line for "random" checks. These may actually not be so random, but are frequently dictated by non-operational criteria, such as the number of male and female screeners on duty at a particular moment. Since TSA does not permit cross-sex patdowns, when there are more women than men on duty, more women are screened than men. Yet men are by far the more prominent terrorist risk. Women wearing skirts are also, apparently, subject to searches more than those wearing slacks, on what? The assumption that it's easier to hide weapons under a skirt than inside pants? Then why search men, most of whom do wear pants? I also note that in all my years of flying, I have never seen TSA pull over a woman wearing a burka or chadour. Why is that?

My wife theorizes that the most unlikely targets are frequently selected for enhanced screening precisely because they are not threatening. A middle aged woman, an old man with a cane, small children--these are most unlikely to be terrorists or to resist a search, therefore they are also the least likely to beat the snot out of an offensive TSA screener or to blow themselves to smithereens if pulled aside.

The bottom line is this: behavioral and ethnic profiling does work, is highly effective when employed properly, and focuses the full weight of the security apparatus on the most likely subjects. As Frederick the Great noted, "He who defends everything defends nothing", and that is precisely the situation at airports today. By assuming everyone is a threat, resources are spread too thin--and this forces a reliance on high technology fixes which are relatively easy to circumvent.

Of course, to apply Israeli style profiling properly, one must follow the Israeli lead, and assign the job to highly trained (and highly paid) professionals, and not to the minimum wage, brain dead mouthbreathers who comprise the bulk of TSA employees--who are soon to be unionized, or so I understand.

Is it any wonder, then, that al Qaeda laughs at our pathetic airport screening processes? In their line of work, any time one of their actions imposes costs, inconvenience and social disruption on us, they win.

Joe, while I certainly agree that air travel is hardly an “essential liberty,” and that our pampered class is (once again) whining (it’s just so tough living in America, isn’t it? (I hope the sarcasm is evident)), let me depart on two points?

1. The larger picture of security measures in the US are all part of “security theater” that has run rampant. How else to explain our invasion and continued occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan? Last I heard, neither of those nationalities were involved with 9/11. For more on “security theater,” may I suggest Bruce Schneier’s writings (http://www.schneier.com)?

2. While this country seems to believe that terrorists see only flying airplanes as a WMD, there have been more terrorist acts worldwide that did not involve airplanes at all (or, closer to home, do any of us remember Timothy McVeigh? Apparently, Mr Krauthammer has.). Granted, we don’t have that many subways in this country – maybe the terrorists think we have none at all?

Basically America, either put up, or shut up; nobody really cares if you get to the Caribbean for your divinely ordained vacation.

Perhaps not too surprising that one encounters a defense of the imaginary here.
In this case the illusion of security as provided by the TSA.

The arguments presented can be quickly and easily dismissed:

1/ The Israelis, whose El Al airline is probably at the highest risk of attack of any airline on the planet, have not experienced a 9/11 equivalent. As that author points out, only one person to date was able to slip through.

2/ The Iraelis do not engage is the useless racial [or similiar] profiling [after all who can tell the difference between a ME Israeli and an Arab in a suit], but in profiling people behaving according to certain suspicious patterns.

3/ On the other hand, it's a matter of record that tests have shown that just about anything can be slipped passed the current TSA checkpoints. For example,

Mythbusting the TSA: Adam Savage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3yaqq9Jjb4

4/ As for the US military: guns yes, nail clippers no.

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/11/18/another-tsa-outrage/

5/ Security theatre:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/tsa-scans-security-theater-interview

6/ How effective are these new scanners?

http://preview.tinyurl.com/tsa-scanner-miss-bombs

As with anything in the US, it's most revealing to follow Deep Throat's advice and "Follow the money". In this case the money trail leads back to Chertoff, who is now a consultant for Rapiscan, the body scanner manufacturer.

Anyways top marks to the author for his use of purely speculative inferences and insinuations and his studious avoidance of facts and evidence.

Stuart Koehl raises many good points. "Security theater" is right.

Joe, I do not have a fetish but I do resent the full body scan that is in full view of all in the screening area. I hate to break it to you but they are not always in some far off corner with only a TSA employee looking. I thought it would be handled more discreetly but it was not. So yes I do have a problem with being naked in public.

And the conversation about the effectiveness of TSA is LONG overdue. Many TSA employees, perhaps most, are the same people who worked airport security on 9/11. They are not highly trained nor are they competent. Does it bother no one that TSA has thwarted nothing except convenience? And they are arrogant doing so? If they unionize forget it. They will be employed for life.

BTW, my husband just retired from active duty so yes I do think that we have done our part. I am not one of the elite, privledged classes. And I am willing to be inconvenienced for the sake of security but they have taken it it too far with too much arrogance to let it happen quietly. Why is it that whenever the public says "no' to the govt. the "public" becomes "the chattering classes" "pundits" "elites". This is hitting a nerve with your average joe.

The smart response to the criticism would have been to review procedures, train, train and train employees and treat the American taxpayer with some respect. TSA employees have overstepped their bounds and should be held accoutnable. But no, they circled the wagons, justified their incompetence and here we are wating to see what happens on the Wed. before Thanksgiving. Great.

Mr. Koehl makes many good points above but proponents of profiling overstep when they bring up 'appearance' and give ammunition to their opponents who think it is really all about scapegoating people of color...I defy him to say what 'middle eastern appearance' is in a sense that can be reliably distinguished from other forms of 'somewhat off white appearance' by harrassed and underpaid airport security gaurds....

The trouble is that if the TSA relax their requirements and then another atrocity is committed, some people will say that it wa only because of the relaxation. With such line of reasoning the Government can seek to justify almost any restriction on our liberty. True, we don't have to travel by air but if the terrorists target a bus and the Government wants all bus or subway passengers to be frisked before boarding, what then? Do you say No or shrug and say: "Nobody has to travel by Greyhound, public transport etc"?

What next? Random stop and search? A prohibition on people gathering in large crowds? Cancel sports events in case a suicide bomber kills people in a crowded area? At some point, we have to say "Enough! We cannot live our lives under such conditions." (I speak as one whose office was twice blown up by Irish terrorists in the 1990s.)

Joe,

TSA is trying to protect us and this is good. The new methods of checking for weapons and bombs boarding aircraft makes us safer and that is good. Noone will deny that being safer and an agency that wants to protect us are good things.

How far is too far? Where is the line drawn and at what point is the integrity of a human person violated. I would think that a high tech strip search would be beyond the realm of what is reasonable for people to subject themselves to in the normal course of their participation in our society.

The major source of public outcry is not that we are safer, but that our federal agencies would rather compromise our liberties than put in the work necessary to truly protect us. Truly protecting the american public is more than just defending them from bodily harm. It involves ensuring that the integrity and dignity of the human person remain intact. The TSA administration has decided as you have that it is too difficult to train their security officials as well as the Israelies do. Instead we will require the american public at random to have their clothes removed via technology so that a stranger can give them a once over. Of course you can opt out and have a strangers hands do the probing rather than their eyes, after all we do like free choice. This same TSA administration has decided to apply this policy at random rather than bother with the training which would ensure that this violation of privacy is applied only to those most likely to be a threat to public safety. Further the TSA has decided to actually consider a waiver of this safety process for Muslim women.

What the american people are angry about is that our government has yet again found it so much more desireable to surrender the rights, liberties, and dignity of its populace than to protect us in the truest sense of the word.

Ask someone a few years ago how terrified of being the target of an attack that they would need to be to let someone see them naked in order to board their flight. Now look at your statistic about how many people support the new measure. This may explain the Drudge headline "The Terrorists have won"

This is really not a new debate. In fact, I had it back in the mid 1980s, only then the problem was Marxist terrorists allied with radical Palestinian groups like the PLFP and Black September, all bankrolled and otherwise supported in various ways by the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact puppets. I was at a symposium at the Brookings Institution (which I remember well, because I sat next to Diane Sawyer), in which a panel of experts, including Robert Kupperman, explained why there was really nothing we could do about terrorism except step up security at home--what I summarized as a "defense in depth" strategy.

I objected, saying that defense in depth could only be achieved through intrusions into and restrictions upon our civil liberties, which would make the United States less free, which was, of course, precisely what the terrorists wanted to happen. All of their actions were essentially provocations intended to sow panic and disruption, and prompt the government into repressive measures. My alternative was "forward defense"--hunting down and destroying terrorist organizations and punishing countries that supported terrorism, so that for them, the game would not be worth the candle. Among other things, I suggested a "collective responsibility" doctrine; i.e., any terrorist attack would invoke a response against all countries known to support terrorists (since they were all cooperating and coordinating their operations, anyway). So, if one Palestinian group attacked a U.S. airliner, the U.S. would retaliate against Syria, Iraq, and Iran, among others.

Kupperman in particular was outraged. You can't do that, he said.

Well, here we are, more than thirty years later, and I stand by my advice. Adopt a forward defense, or gradually see all our civil liberties eroded. We are just one major terrorist incident away from a major crackdown of the type Europeans now take for granted (the security presence in major European cities is much more ubiquitous and heavy-handed than here), particularly as the Obama Administration, because of its perceived weakness on national security, will inevitably overreact to any attack.

--- If a terrorist wants to launch an attack in the U.S. using a weapon of mass destruction they have two basic options---

Actually there is third option whereby an attack using weapons of mass destruction may be launched in America by a terrorist. A US president may order it done using the huge arsenal at his disposal. Remember Clinton in Sudan, Bush in Afghanistan and Iraq, Truman in Nagasaki, Nixon in Hanoi, etc. etc.

Security professionals I have spoken with tell me that their profiles can run as long as 19 pages. They are never so simplistic as "muslim."

Anyone familiar with 100% inspection can tell you how ineffective it is, even in manufactured product. Inevitably, highway hypnosis kicks in, and it is impossible to believe that the 10,000th scan will be examined with the same sprightly verve and enthusiasm as the first.

The rectal bomber who assassinated the Saudi minister a while back had a bomb made entirely of plastic, thus relatively invisible to scanners, and planted where the scanners would not see it without a big increase in ionizing radiation.

No one will take over an airliner with boxcutters ever again. Passengers will no longer sit back passively under the circumstances. (Previously, they were threatened with lawsuits if they resisted hijackers. No more.) Cabin doors are locked now, too. Planes will be brought down more probably with shoulder-fired missiles during take off or landing. Suicide bombers will find victims packed tightly in security lines. Downed airplanes are not the objective; terrified civilians are. Remember, the first effort to down the WTC involved a truck bomb, not a plane.

It is also relatively easy to purchase surplussed airliners and cargo jets. Drug dealers are already doing so as a means of smuggling. Buy one, paint it up with the logo of a front company, then pack it up with HE in Dakar or Marrakesh and fly it across the Atlantic. (Basic hurdle: people smart enough to fly planes are too smart to kill themselves. Recruities are running low these days, and the volunteers are getting progressively more stupid. Some orgs have turned to coersion: e.g., kidnapping a family to secure the cooperation of the father.)

I think I'll go with Charles Krauthammer. He makes the most sense with a lot less words.

No American airliner will ever be hijacked again. Why? Because American airline passengers will not permit it. Any attempt by anyone to take over an airplane in flight will be met by mass passenger resistance. Any would-be hijacker will be beaten and possibly killed, no matter what weapon he may have.

This, and not the TSA's farcical security theater, is why no airliner has been used as a WMD since 9/11: every attempt has ended in a terrorist beat-down. If you think American air passengers will sit strapped-in and docile as Omar the Tentmaker flies them into the Super Bowl, you had better think again.

Alert and self-interested passengers are the only means by which a terrorist may be stopped. It is therefore obvious that there is no need for the TSA. Get rid of it, and all the rest of our ridiculous "security" apparatus as well. I am willing to bet my life and the lives of my family that no terrorist will ever take over a U.S. airliner again.

Colonel Sun makes a good point here. Profiling does not have to be based on race, and in this case should not be, because that is not the risk-identifier. The fact that American devotees of pc immediately think that profiling is about race shows their warped obsessions, not the reality of the threat. Israel's profiling works because it has nothing to do with race, but rather cultural and attitudinal characteristics. That is why intrusive questions about a person's family relationships and religious attitudes are far more likely to yield a potential terrorist than a profile based on racial characteristics which would tell you nothing. (eg, Middle Eastern Israeli Jews look indistinguishable from Arabs, black Jews are not likely to be supporters of any militant Islamic group, etc.)

A number of years back, there was a pregnant Irish lady, as white and European as can be, who was carrying a bomb in a false bottom suitcase and was caught at Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv. When they questioned her, they found out she had an Arab boyfriend living in Ireland and various other "intrusive", personal questions made the security guards suspicious (why was she traveling alone to the MEast for example, after her boyfriend saw her off at the Ireland airport?). It turns out that this nice fiance of hers had planted the bomb in her suitcase and was perfectly happy to blow her and the fetus up in order to blow the Israeli airport up. That sort of thing has nothing to do with race at all - either hers or his. It was detected by profiling, attitudinal issues, and other circumstantial facts that seemed out of the ordinary.

Of course, in America, liberals would scream about invasion of privacy while the airport blows up.

This article is just unserious. The claim that the only possible type of profiling is purely racial (i.e., appearance) based is laughably ignorant, but the main epic fail here is completely failing to see that the huge outcry during the past two weeks is because of the aggressive pat-downs, NOT the scanners. Pat-downs are mentioned only at the very end, but they're the very heart of this controversy.

"When Matt Drudge posts “The Terrorists Have Won!” you have to assume that he has either completely lost perspective or that he is merely trolling for pageviews."

Wow. Talk about missing the point. That headline was under a picture of a TSA agent wearing a hijab frisking a nun. Do you have no sense of humor at all? Clearly you're assuming the reader who has made it through the preceding nonsense doesn't ever read Drudge, that's for sure.

There are many points here, some good, some bad. You're right that profiling is not a solution. But you have no argument that what the TSA is doing right now, the practices that have provoked all the outrage, make any sense. Does it make any sense to subject everyone to these things when the additional work required for a terrorist to evade them would be minimal? No, it doesn't. And pointing out hyperbole is fine, but why doesn't this piece grapple with the serious criticisms of these particular policies?

The 9/11 security hole was effectively eliminated by fortifying the cockpit door and arming the pilot, which wasn't allowed by the feds before then. We are pretty well protected from hijack/kamikaze attacks now.

Other vulnerabilities of commercial aircraft: missiles, AA flak, terrorist-coerced airline pilots, EMP, maintenance worker sabotage, underwear bombs (still), dozens of passengers smuggling liquid explosives in 1 oz containers to construct a bomb...

This TSA show won't work to protect us from these, and we will never really be totally secure when flying. For those who can't handle that... Go Greyhound.

(Which, statistically, is unfortunately much, much, less safe than the terrorist prone skies)

Here is something very relevant to the current discussion. The following are 22 quotes about enhanced pat downs and TSA groping. They are presented without commentary because they speak for themselves. The original attributions for these quotes may be found at the following link: http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=173145

#1 Blogger Erin Chase:

I stood there, an American citizen, a mom traveling with a baby with special needs formula, sexually assaulted by a government official. I began shaking and felt completely violated, abused and assaulted by the TSA agent. I shook for several hours, and woke up the next day shaking.

#2 ABC News producer Carolyn Durand:

“The woman who checked me reached her hands inside my underwear and felt her way around.”

#3 Wendy James Gigliotti:

“She said ’spread your legs.’ And then she took her full palms and started at my neck and ran all the way down my body, full palms, constant contact. And when she got down to my feet, she was in constant contact from my ankles all the way up to my groin, across my groin, and down the other leg. And she did that twice.”

#4 Female air traveler Ella Swift:

“The female officer ran her hand up the inside of my leg to my groin and she did it so hard and so rough she lifted me off my heels.”

#5 Flight attendant Cathy Bossi:

“She put her full hand on my breast and said, ‘What is this?’. And I said, ‘It’s my prosthesis because I’ve had breast cancer.’ And she said, ‘Well, you’ll need to show me that’.”

#6 Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano:

“I think we all understand the concerns Americans have. It’s something new. Most Americans are not used to a real law enforcement pat-down like that.”

#7 A 61-year-old bladder cancer survivor:

“One agent watched as the other used his flat hand to go slowly down my chest. I tried to warn him that he would hit the bag and break the seal on my bag, but he ignored me. Sure enough, the seal was broken and urine started dribbling down my shirt and my leg and into my pants.”

#8 An anonymous TSA worker:

“Molester, pervert, disgusting, an embarrassment, creep. These are all words I have heard today at work describing me. …These comments are painful and demoralizing.”

#9 Robert Colella:

If some total stranger walked up to you in the street and said “I am either going to see you naked or touch your genitals”, What would be the likelihood of that person walking away from that encounter?

#10 CNN employee Rosemary Fitzpatrick:

“As an experienced traveler for work who was in tears for most of the search process, I have never experienced a more traumatic and invasive travel event!”

#11 Meagan Quinn:

I will not board an airplane in America until the TSA body scanners are gone. No one is seeing my naked body unless I let them. I will also not settle for being GROPED in public as an alternative.

#12 A lawsuit filed on behalf of a female college student from Amarillo Texas:

“As the TSA agent was frisking plaintiff, the agent pulled the plaintiff’s blouse completely down, exposing plaintiffs’ breasts to everyone in the area.”

#13 Bruce Sargent:

The sexual humiliation of detainees at Abu Ghraib is not so very different then the sexual humiliation being heaped on American air travelers at airports. Why is TSA torturing us to protect us?

#14 A 37-year-old Texas woman who had her nipple ring removed with a pair of pliers before she was allowed to pass through security:

“My experience with TSA was a nightmare I had to endure. No one deserves to be treated this way.”

#15 A soldier returning from Afghanistan:

“So we’re in line, going through one at a time. One of our soldiers had his Gerber multi-tool. TSA confiscated it. Kind of ridiculous, but it gets better. A few minutes later, a guy empties his pockets and has a pair of nail clippers. Nail clippers. TSA informs the soldier that they’re going to confiscate his nail clippers.”

#16 A flight attendant named Megan:

The agent went up my right leg first and then met my vagina with full force….the same on the other leg with the same result. She then used both of her hands to feel my breasts and squeezing them. At this point I was in shock.

#17 Jay Glover:

I spend on average $30K per year on business travel. The airlines get the bulk of this but hotels, car rentals, meals and miscellaneous expenses add up as well. Where I can cut travel, I will. When those associated with airport travel feel the financial pinch just watch how fast this all will change.

#18 Paul Craig Roberts:

It is difficult to imagine New Yorkers being porno-screened and sexually groped on crowded subway platforms or showing up an hour or two in advance for clearance for a 15 minute subway ride, but once bureaucrats get the bit in their teeth they take absurdity to its logical conclusion.

#19 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when asked if she would like to go through the new pat-downs:

“Not if I could avoid it. No. I mean, who would?”

#20 TSA Administrator John Pistole during a Congressional hearing:

“If you are asking me, am I going to change my policies? No.”

#21 U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller to TSA chief John Pistole:

“I Think You’re Doing A Terrific Job.”

#22 Congressman Ron Paul:

I introduced legislation last week that is based on a very simple principle: federal agents should be subject to the same laws as ordinary citizens. If you would face criminal prosecution or a lawsuit for groping someone, exposing them to unwelcome radiation, causing them emotional distress, or violating indecency laws, then TSA agents should similarly face sanctions for their actions.

Because I’m already late in responding to the comments, I’ll address some of the points in general:

Some people seem to be inconsistent in their positions. If your argument is that the new measures violate civil liberties then it makes no sense to support profiling since it is *even more* anti-liberty. (There is a reason why libertarians and privacy advocates oppose both the scanners and profiling.)

Also, if you want to argue that profiling does not have to be based on race or ethnicity, then you need to explain how that can be done. There is nowhere in the world where non-race/ethnicity profiling is being done. The idea that profiling can be purely “behavior” based is a fantasy. The 19 hijackers on 9/11 *were* essentially profiled and identified by the CAPPS system. They were all cleared.

As to those who say the current screening process is merely "security theater" seem to be unaware that the TSA confiscates 2 guns and a dozen knives *every day*.

Is the process flawed? Absolutely. That is why we need *stronger* measures, not weaker ones (like profiling). No system is foolproof. But we can do better.

As for the slippery-slop argument, you can either choose to argue it on philosophical or pragmatic grounds—but not both. If you take the philosophical route then you should be against metal detectors too. If you are merely pragmatic, then you might take some comfort in realizing that the new measures were implemented 9 years after the methods were used. That's not a very slippery slope.


Also, air travel is neither a positive nor a negative right—it's not a right at all. To claim that we are losing our "liberty" by submitting to security screenings is ridiculous and is an affront to those who have sacrificed to protect our true liberties.

And finally, to the people who think we don’t need to screen for weapons since the passengers will sacrifice their lives to stop a hijacking . . . well, I can’t even think of how to respond to such inanity.

I guess if you are willing to risk sacrificing your family members so that you don’t have to go through the indignity of a pat-down, then it might make sense. But for most of us, our primary line of defense against a hijacker shouldn’t be when they have a weapon on a plane and are *using it on the passengers*.

I wish we could all step back and stop thinking about this issue from a purely individualistic "how does it affect me" (either abstractly or realistically) position. I wish we would think about how we might protect the lives of our fellow man rather than about how we are being inconvenienced. But that won't happen because America is infected with the adolescent, utopian strand of libertarianism.

So let's cut to the chase. Tell me how many Americans per year you are willing to let die so that you don't have some grubby TSA agent pat you down. Give me a number. Privacy and security is a trade-off so how many lives are you willing to trade?

What's this? An article on a Catholic site suggesting that those who do not want to have naked pictures taken or have their genitals touched by strangers are really "privileged elite who believes their most inviolable right is the right not to be personally inconvenienced. " Being groped by strangers = 'inconvenient'. Being upset about said groping is for the 'privileged elite'. I'm glad there aren't any scandals or anything that might give some people the impression that Catholics don't take sexual abuse seriously, because otherwise this might be taken out of context.

"Tell me how many Americans per year you are willing to let die so that you don't have some grubby TSA agent pat you down."

More unseriousness.

Tell me how many Americans per year are going to be saved if some grubby TSA agent pats my daughter down?

Actually, according to my wife, one American will be be at serious risk of severe bodily harm if that ever happens, and that's the agent daring to do such a thing.

"If a terrorist wants to launch an attack in the U.S. using a weapon of mass destruction they have two basic options: (1) Create the WMD in a foreign land and smuggle it into America, or (2) smuggle a knife onto an American airplane and use it to create a WMD. "

By the way, this initial premise is faulty. There are many types of WMD that can be improvised from materials readily available in the United States. Using aircraft as flying bombs is just one of may options available to terrorists who wish to inflict massive casualties on us.

The materials needed to create chemical weapons are easy to obtain through legal means, and it does not take a genius in organic chemistry to churn out a batch of Sarin or Soman nerve agent--just someone who is capable of following a recipe and scrupulous about safety procedures. A Japanese terrorist group back in the nineties cooked up quite a bit of the stuff and succeeded in killing some people on the Tokyo subways. They would have killed more, but failed because they were idiots who did not think through the hard part--delivering the agent in a manner that affects large numbers of people. Today's terrorists will not make that mistake, and will probably avail themselves of something like a cropduster, an ultralight aircraft or even a large RC model airplane to deliver the weapon in the form of an aerosol mist. Fly over a sports stadium, crowded downtown area, or park, and get several thousands, maybe tens of thousands, dead and dying in minutes.

Other potential avenues for mass casualties include: chemical plants; liquified natural gas storage areas (or ships: and LNG tanker exploding in New York harbor would have the same blast effect as a small nuclear weapon); refineries; dams; bridges and tunnels; and rail lines (new movie out about that one, I hear). And let us not forget good, old-fashioned improvised high explosives. Remember, al Qaeda came within an ace of dropping the World Trade Center in 1993 using a truck bomb; had they placed it a little better, it would have worked.

Because of that attack (and the Oklahoma City bombing), high value targets around the country were hardened against truck bombs. Inspection stations were installed in the WTC parking garages, and at the Pentagon, a new freight handling facility was constructed well away from the main building (until then, trucks entered tunnels that went to loading docks under the Pentagon itself). As a result, the 9/11 terrorists eschewed truck bombs and went with airplanes (not a new idea; Tom Clancy included the scenario in one of his books, while the Japanese showed the way in World War II). The lesson is clear: we face an intelligent, responsive enemy who prefers to attack soft targets. Whenever we erect a new security barrier, he will simply circumvent it by adapting a new mode of attack.

1. The backscatter and millimeter wave scanners do not penetrate past the skin.
2. Terrorists can hide small explosives in bodily cavities.
3. Shall we ask all the women to remove their tampons for examination and have the men submit to rectal cavity searches? It would make us safer, so isn't it justified according to you?

The truth is that this is an elaborate theater that allows those in power to superficially demonstrate their seriousness about security to a fearful populace. It's not about increasing safety, or else more effective measures would be taken. It's about the show.

Your "Go Greyhound" schtick is the only thing here that is in bad faith and beneath you. It is an attempt to silence critics by framing the alternatives as to either "put up" or "shut up [and go Greyhound]." Unfortunately for you, the TSA is a political entity and therefore is accountable to critical political speech.

We will not shut up and go Greyhound. After all, the TSA has jurisdiction there as well.

More regarding the "Go Greyhound" argument:
Napolitano said her agency is now looking into ways to make other popular means of travel safer for passengers and commuters. Napolitano isn’t the only one who’s suggested that advanced scanning machines could be used in places beyond airports. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, introduced legislation this past September that would authorize testing of body scanners at some federal buildings.

"Talk about missing the point. That headline was under a picture of a TSA agent wearing a hijab frisking a nun. "

I don't think we are too far from that. As I mentioned, at Washington Dulles Airport, a disturbingly high proportion of screeners are Muslims of Middle Eastern or South/Central Asian origin, including quite a few women in headscarves. Quis custodes ipsos custodiet?

By the way, I imagine that women will soon be the majority of TSA screeners, due to a number of factors--low pay and prestige among them--but also including intrusive body searches. What normal man, after all, wants to spend all day sticking his hand down another man's pants? I imagine TSA will soon find it difficult to recruit men who meet even its ridiculously low psychological standards, meaning more screeners will be women, meaning more women than men will be selected for body scans and pat downs.

Oh, how al Qaeda must be laughing at us.

The problem with the TSA and with the current scan/pat-down system isn't that we have screening or pat-downs or an entity in charge of them.

It's that the TSA is a government agency and therefore the employees at the security points are of the same caliber as those you will find at your local DMV, or at the post office, or at any number of other government agencies. They are the dregs of society. Sorry, but that's just the truth. It was either a job at the TSA or one that involved a paper hat.

The training is appalling. We're finding out now that some of these screeners are getting about an hour's worth of training and then are being let loose to pat down people with medical conditions, children, etc.

Having been through this kind of screening in airports around the world, I have no problem with them -- when done professionally by properly trained individuals the pat-downs are quick, brusque, completely non-"sexual" (I am really beginning to wonder if these chronic complainers have ever actually had sex...), and not nearly as physically repellant as sitting next to someone with bad body odor or who is too large for the average airline seat, or who is travelling with spoiled rotten, screaming kids.

For those who are so high on the Israeli method, I will grant you their system has merits -- primarily that it's privatized. However, it's way more invasive than the US method. It involves a deep background check on all your personal information, arriving at least four hours prior to your flight and undergoing an exhaustive personal interview, and El Al has the right to refuse you entry on one of their planes at any time based on anything they find in these background checks or interviews that raises a red flag in _their_ mind. Happened to a friend of mine -- he travels extensively, including some third world countries, he's a bit of an oddball -- lives on his sailboat, for example, and has some unusual hobbies -- nicest guy you'd ever meet, but El Al thinks he's too risky to be on one of their planes.

So, yes, let's privatize the security checkpoints, let's get better personnel, let's develop appropriate protocols for passengers with medical situations, and families with small children, and so on. But these security checkpoints are the norm now, and I am thankful for them.

For all those going on about how it's all "theatre", or how the TSA is backward-looking, just remember that terrorists of any stripe will wait long and hard to find the weak spot at whatever they choose to target. That's what they do. That's why it's _terror_ -- because it's the thing you don't expect in the place you don't expect to encounter it. So we think, for one second, someone won't try to use a commercial flight again, or blow one up mid-air, or just run around slashing people willy-nilly (as a guy did on a Greyhound bus, ultimately beheading a passenger, if you recall -- the one transportation method that has NO security checks whatsoever), then that's where the terrorists will go.

They are sitting back now laughing their butts off at the usual over-the-top hysteria the usual do-nothing loudmouths are stirring up and they are biding their time.

So I'm for the security checkpoints. I'd like to see them out of the hands of a government bureaucracy, I'd like to see better personnel, and I think there should be a medical professional of some sort on hand, but if someone wants to pat me down, I'm fine with it, and not because, like Gloria Allred, it's been a while, but because I actually have sex on a regular basis and I can tell the difference.

Well, let's jump to a really nice conclusion here. There should be a big investment in a better train system, so that people who really object to these measures or for older and handicapped people who simply can't tolerate the frenzy and activity of the search line can have a REAL alternative. I have been a supporter of high-speed and high quality train service for years (a la Europe, Japan, and other civilized countries), especially in densely populated places like the Northeastern corridor. It's really a pleasure to run up to the platform at the Newark Train Station 10 minutes before "All Aboard", with no body search, no X-rays buzzing through my luggage, no waiting on lengthy lines. Support better high-speed train service all you libertarians and people who don't want to be inconvenienced, rather than whining about being groped!

Oh, and let's REALLY cut to the chase here -- if you don't think for one hot second the folks making the biggest noise about this wouldn't parade through SFO or JFK nekkid as a jaybird and let a TSA agent pat them up, down and under for enough money, you've got another think comin'. Please -- who here would NOT let the creepiest TSA agent you could find pat them down for $10,000,000??

Insert the one about haggling over prices usually attributed to Winston Churchill here...

The cockpit door is locked throughout the flight. The pilots are allowed to have a gun in the cockpit. How exactly is smuggling a knife onto an airplane supposed to help a terrorist repeat a 9/11 style attack (i.e., using a plane as a WMD), given these rules? According to the alternative the author proposes at the beginning of the column, the body scanners and aggressive pat-downs are unnecessary. I find it difficult to take the arguments in this column seriously, since it begins with the false premise that the new security procedures are meant to address the threat of a repeated 9/11 style attack.

Here's food for thought: the 9/11 terrorists didn't even "smuggle" anything on board. Box-cutters were allowed in carry-on bags at that time. The changes made to security requirements in the wake of 9/11 were enough to make certain that a 9/11 style attack cannot happen again.

I'm brazilian and maybe i shouldn't tell you what to do for your own safety, but patdown three year old girls is grotesque, and so is humiliating law abiding citizens. There should be a mix of inteligence, searchings based on suspect behaviour and undercovered agents in the airplane. And indeed you're not going to fully prevent an attack. I only speak for myself but i'd rather blow up in the skies than have my security garanteed by touching little girls. I hope my government is not planing to do the same here. There're limits, moral limits, even if the right to fly from one place to the other does not exist. Once a friend of mine here told me that you don't need to blow anything up to destroy America, you only need to get a fake bomb inside your body, and you would soon be searching for bombs inside of every body part of every american.

Thank you to Stuart Koehl for his learned, comprehensive response to Joe Carter's usual contrarian provocations. "Security theater" is les mots justes.

Yes, air travel in an age of terrorism requires some trade-offs of liberty for security. That isn't in much dispute, except when Mr. Carter maximizes his opponent's argument for straw-man purposes.

It isn't a matter of liberty versus security It is a matter of security versus dignity. Those of us rallying under the "Don't Touch My Junk" standard simply believe preserving our dignity as persons is worth sacrificing the feel-good TSA pantomime in pursuit of the mythical goal of absolute security.

Reasonable people disagree where the line might be drawn. The problem with Mr. Carter's mode of argument is that he lampoons us for speaking on behalf of personal dignity. We're not crazed ideologues for insisting dignity be a factor in the balancing act, sometimes, yes, at the expense of perfect security (or perfect liberty).

In Obamaland, you can’t ask illegals for proof of identity, but you can strip-search every American citizen at an airport.

In Obamaland, we drop bombs on people in the remote mountains of Pakistan, but refuse to guard our Southern border.

In Obamaland, the First Lady proposes spending $400 million for healthy salad bars in school, while the Gov’t “Safe Schools” Czar wants to teach kids about “fisting.”

In Obamaland, every American citizen is forced to buy Gov’t approved health-insurance, but no one can make you prove you are a citizen.

Welcome to Bizzaro Obamaland, once known as the United States.

@King ***The problem with Mr. Carter's mode of argument is that he lampoons us for speaking on behalf of personal dignity.***

If you find it an affront to your personal dignity, then do not travel by commercial air. It really is that simple. The problem is that Americans want to have everything they want in exactly the way they want it.

My 17-year-old daughter went through the pat-down process this morning. I asked her if she felt that process was degrading, demeaning, or intrusive. She didn't think so, but then, she was raised to consider other people's safety ahead of her hang-ups about personal space. To each his own, I guess.

True, flying is not an express right. However, the essential freedoms which we can rightly lay claim due to simply being human and due to the Constitution includes the freedom to travel. We are not serfs tied to the land/our homes. We are free people who do have a "right" to move about freely and included in that is the ability to make a commercial contract with an airline and fly somewhere if we want to.

The government does have certain duties under the Constitution to defend us from our enemies. However, the Constitution is also clear that there are certain things the government may not do while carrying out its own constitutional duties. The 4th Amendment clearly states that Americans are not subject to search without probable cause. This means a clear and directional probable cause, not some vague all-encompassing threat that never ends as far as the authorities are concerned. When we fly, a certain level of security is acceptable. But trying to force people to expose themselves to radiation (which has NOT been proven safe, regardless of what the government says) and to being virtually stripped naked by a scanner is a violation of our 4th Amendment rights (as as least one government official -- current or former, I forget -- admitted). The alternative, being physically searched is also unacceptable. These measures may only be taken if a specific individual raises probable cause that they are a terrorist, and then, only against that particular person. 99.9999% of those who fly most certainly do not raise such a likelihood and therefore the current policy is unconstitutional and morally and ethically WRONG.

Sec. Napolitiano has already raised the "next step" possibility of installing these body scanners in many more public places (in particular mass transit hubs and public buildings). Can you imagine a time when you might be "forced" to go through one of these numerous times a day just to go about your regular routine? And the government also wants to issue identity cards with smart chips that would tell anyone with access where a given person is at any time of any day. Really? Is that what Americans want? Will that make us "safe"? I think not. It will just ensure that we will live in a police state where the Constitution is completely ignored. That is the slippery slope we will go down if we now do not demand that the feds change their policies at the airports. Incrementalism sometimes fools people -- as the government wants -- into a compliance that then leads them to lose their freedom. We must not fall into that trap.

"If you find it an affront to your personal dignity, then do not travel by commercial air. It really is that simple. The problem is that Americans want to have everything they want in exactly the way they want it."

That's nonsense. First of all, many people have to travel for business (and don't tell me they can just get another job, because we all know that isn't realistic). Secondly, do you really think the government plans on stopping with airline travel? As I noted in my previous post, they want to expand. What then, Mr. Carter? Do those who believe in the Constitution and its guarantees have no recourse but to stay in their homes (where, by the way, they still might be zapped with radiation if a government security van equiped with X-ray scanners comes by and scans their home)? Even though they are law-abiding people who would never even think of committing a violent act and who just want to live their lives? No way.

Mr. Carter. Sad to say, YOUR comments are over the top on this matter. Some elements of truth, yes, but little true balance in your remarks.

Joe, we already make bargains in America that result in innocent people dying. Our judicial presumption of innocence on which the 4th amendment protections are built guarantee that not all guilty men and women will be punished, and that some will do violence against society again. I know you would not be in favor of adopting Mexico's "guilty until proven innocent" judicial system, but it seems to me that you are adopting that very position when it comes to this issue of protecting against the threat of air terrorism. I am not willing to give the police the right to randomly search our homes, even though I am certain that some criminals will be found and some crimes prevented. This is not a privacy fetish, but an unwillingness to give up rights to a government that cannot be trusted to handle that sort of power.

The US immigration service has Global Entry Program that can give travelers willing to submit to background checks an ID card that lets them enter the country with a lesser degree of scrutiny. That's an example of a smart (and voluntary) program that could be applied generally to air travelers. TSA has essentially agreed, since it now exempts both pilots and flight attendants from these extra security measures because they have already submitted to background checks.

It's a tough job to balance our public safety with our Constitution. This new TSA process crosses the line, in my opinion.

Kirstin, while Israeli airline security may not issue a card with a "smart chip", the background check they do essentially covers the same information -- who you are, who you're related to, where you've been, where you live, your finances, etc., and once you fly with them, that info is stored. So scanners and pat-downs may seem more intrusive at the checkpoints, but they're far less intrusive in the long run. Not that I have a problem with either method or a combination of both methods.

Also, while we have the right to freely enter into a contract with a commercial carrier, that carrier has the right to impose conditions under which _they_ will enter into that contract, and one of those conditions may well be a scan/pat-down, albeit airline-owned and regulated.

IMO, that's the way to go -- scan and pat down, but let the airlines own it -- they are more likely to hire better people, provide better training, and to be more cautious -- we can sue them and win much more easily than we can sue the TSA and win, and for the airlines it's always about the bottom line.

If the handful of horror stories regarding the TSA pat-downs involved private airline personnel, the response would be immediate.

Of course, some of these horror stories are specious at best -- one woman on Erin Chase's blog claimed her husband had to remove his trousers and underwear and undergo an anal cavity search in public, which is clearly just not true. Chase's own story is highly sensationalized for her personal benefit. Claiming you were in shock for hours, even days, after the event isn't really all that believable when you spent that time calling lawyers, writing blog posts, promoting blog posts, developing an email address where you would respond to reporters, soliciting interviews, arranging for Fox News interviews, etc. I don't buy stories where the situation is being called a sexual assault whille the supposed victim is at the same time working the so-called assault to her personal advantage. And I think implying sexual intent on the part of a TSA worker is like calling a drunken hook-up you regret the next morning "rape". It dehumanizes and diminishes genuine sexual assault situations and victims.

Privatization works to everyone's advantage -- people are less likely to get away with over-the-top, hysterical, ramped-up, sensationalized versions of their supposed "sexual assaults" if we remove the political, and airlines have a vested interest in making a security checkpoint as streamlined and professional as possible.

Joe, it's unbecoming to call into question someone's virtue, and especially his parenting skills, simply because he disagrees with you. It's neither intelligent nor polite. In doing so, in fact, you prove King's point, by latching onto and then misrepresenting an irrelevant point. First Things, I hope, holds a higher standard than that.

I'd like to repeat what others have pointed out already: of course flying is not an intrinsic right, but that is irrelevant. Eating at a particular restaurant at a particular time isn't either, nor is sitting in a particular seat on a particular bus an intrinsic right. But many would argue that it is an affront to basic human dignity to say that someone could not eat at this restaurant at this time due to unjust reasons, such as the color of one's skin. According to your line of reasoning, such a situation is just fine. If someone doesn't like it, don't eat at that restaurant. Or don't ride on that bus. Is that what you think?

Likewise, although it isn't an intrinsic right to fly on a particular airplane at a particular time, it would be an affront to basic human dignity to open flights to all people except someone of a certain color. And to bring the analogy back to the point, it is an affront to human dignity (or one's rights, I suppose), to force some people to undergo humiliating and and capricious searches that have little correlation to safety.

@Kirstin ***First of all, many people have to travel for business (and don't tell me they can just get another job, because we all know that isn't realistic).***

Why isn’t it realistic? If the rest of the country is expected to accept a lower level of safety to accommodate your preference not to undergo screening, then why can’t your employer make concessions?

***Secondly, do you really think the government plans on stopping with airline travel?***

Let’s assume they don’t. Since there is currently no legitimate need for added security on other modes of transportation I’ll join you in opposing such measures. But what does that have to do with the merits of this system?

And since the government might be tempted to put metal detectors in other forms of transportation, should we push to have them removed from airports in order that we don’t encourage the slippery-slope?

@Charles H. Davis ***Mr. Carter. Sad to say, YOUR comments are over the top on this matter.***

Perhaps my remarks are a bit over the top. But I wasn’t exaggerating when I said I’m tired of people who won’t lift a finger to defend their liberty and security crying because they have to make some minor concessions in order to take a particular form of transportation. I find this whole issue baffling.

@Charlie ***This is not a privacy fetish, but an unwillingness to give up rights to a government that cannot be trusted to handle that sort of power.***

I respect your position, but there is a simple reason why the screening does not violate the 4th Amendment: It is completely voluntary.

The problem is that many people think that they should be able to *refuse* the search and still be able to do what they want (i.e., board a commercial aircraft). It doesn't work that way. Sometimes we have to make hard choices. If people truly cannot in good conscience consent to such searches, then they have no choice but to choose an alternate form of transportation.

@Nora ***It dehumanizes and diminishes genuine sexual assault situations and victims. ***

Great point! That type of hyperbole is getting out of control.

"Let’s set aside the absurdity of the Franklin quote, one of the most bizarre remarks the genius from Pennsylvania ever said—the men and women of the military give up essential liberties, would Franklin say they deserve neither liberty nor safety?—and consider how it applies in this case. A hundred and twenty years ago airplanes didn’t even exist. Forty years ago, air travel was a luxury reserved for the wealthy. Would Franklin really consider the right to travel by air an 'essential liberty?' Should any of us?"

All I can say is, wow, what a silly argument.

To argue that the state has the right to our body if we want to use a public accomodation/service - which is what your "argument" amounts to, is almost monstrous in its implications. The "right" at stake here is not some invented "right to fly", but the basic right to have our personal dignity.

I am shocked and angered to find a writer at First Things who cares so little for human dignity.

Sorry, Joe. While I usually enjoy and appreciate your articles you lost me on this one.

"Hang ups about personal space"???

We have, if he is presenting himself honestly, an individual who has worked in the security field presenting clear and cognizant arguments about why the current policy is flawed while you put forth an anecdote about your daughter's feelings about having a complete stranger grope her.

Maybe it doesn't bother you or your daughter. But it bothers enough people that it has become a national issue. Dismissing us because you find it to be irrational is beneath you and your publication.

What would you think about implementing this in your local church or school? Any place where a large number of people gather in a centralized space. Can you justify not doing this?

If a man comes up to my daughter on the street and touches her inappropriately it's considered a crime. Do it in the airport and it's considered necessary for individual safety.

And your comment about TSA confiscating 2 guns and dozens of knives everyday is pitiful. Millions of people fly in the US each day and youre defense is that they find several dozen objects that may or may not have been intended for anything violent. I carry a penknife in my pocket everyday. It is habitual for me to take it in the same way that I take my wallet. If by chance I forget to take it out of my pocket before attempting to fly then somehow I've become a terrorist intent on harming myself and others. It is laughable and sad at the same time.

This is going to become a Federal case. The ACLU is carefully constructing a court challenge to the AIT scanners and enhanced rub-downs amount to an unnecessary seizure and search of a person's body.

This is a difficult issue, because courts have agreed that the 4th Amendment sets 'expectations' of privacy for civilians. Surely, everyone expects to have their luggage searched or x-rayed at an airport. Everyone also expects to walk through a magnetometer. Everyone expects at least two people to check their government issued ID and boarding pass. And now everyone expects to remove their shoes and belts.

But something extraordinary has happened (for the good). Flying Americans have realized that a line has to be drawn somewhere. They have also realized that Americans should not be subjected to increased searching on an ad-hoc basis. New rules are imposed after an aspiring terrorist boards a plane (or tries to board a plane) in Europe and/or Africa. There have been four so far: Richard Reid brought us the removal of shoes in 2001. A failed liquid bomb plot in 2006 (that never reached an airport) brought us the ban on liquids. The young, disturbed Mr. Abdulmutallab (whose own father told the US not to let him fly across the Atlantic), brought us the AIT scanners and firmer pat-downs. And finally a silly mail bomb plot hatched in Yemen has brought us a reactionary ban on toner cartridges. Not that the last development is a serious inconvenience, but what will happen is the next mail bomb is in the form of a smart phone? We can see what's going to happen, can't we?

The TSA, a department of 60,000 employees, apparently does not have the time to document its procedures or train its staff. The ACLU has learned that most TSA agents haven't even used the departments electronic library or online training refreshers in over 5 years. Now it is perfectly fine for the TSA not to reveal all of its procedures relating to screening. But for the agency not to even keep written policies or mandate training and performance reviews for its staff is outrageous. And that will open a door to a Federal civil class action lawsuit. Just keep in mind that ACLU lawsuits are never for cash damages. They are simply meant to reverse the new enhanced searches.

I hope people on both ends of the political spectrum will appreciate what the ACLU us doing in this area and supports a big budget challenge to the TSA. I think Liberals and Conservatives can agree that it is very costly and potentially dangerous to have a government agency that is too big, too invasive, and not accountable nor well managed. It's a recipe for both a constitutional crisis and an unnecessary economic setback for our aviation industry.

A line must be drawn to safeguard law abiding Americans from invasive bodily searches. It will be difficult, however, to find a Federal judge who agrees with that argument.

Of course it's impossible to construct a comprehensive argument in a comment on a website while at work. That should be understood. So pardon me if it's not clear. What I'm trying to argue is that it's a non sequitur to say, "if you don't like it, don't fly".

First, as someone already pointed out, sometimes it's just about necessary to fly. So that's neither a practical, nor true, nor well-intentioned argument.

Second, I don't think it's correct to say that because one doesn't deserve or isn't owed A, therefore one may be required to do something inherently wrong in order to obtain or use A.

P.S. What time is FT on? I would have thought NYC, but that comment appearing at 9:49 when I wrote it at 12:40 eastern is odd.

***Joe, it's unbecoming to call into question someone's virtue, and especially his parenting skills, simply because he disagrees with you.***

I didn’t question anyone’s virtue or parenting skills.

***I'd like to repeat what others have pointed out already: of course flying is not an intrinsic right, but that is irrelevant.***

No, sir, it is not irrelevant when people are arguing that it is a violation of their liberty. To be a violation of their liberty they would either need to have a right to a particular course of action.

***But many would argue that it is an affront to basic human dignity to say that someone could not eat at this restaurant at this time due to unjust reasons, such as the color of one's skin. According to your line of reasoning, such a situation is just fine.***

Holy cow. You have that exactly backward. Most of the people in this comment thread are the ones saying that it’s perfectly just to “profile” someone based on their skin color. I’m saying that is wrong.

The correct analogy would be to say that *no one* could eat at this restaurant at this time without voluntarily agreeing to accept a certain type of search. It applies to all people equally, so it is not an affront to dignity.

One of the biggest problems I have with this entire discussion is the way that meaningful terms such as “liberty” and “dignity” are being watered-down by people who think screening should be done to people whose skin-color or religion differs from their own.


***who has worked in the security field presenting clear and cognizant arguments about why the current policy is flawed***

Who has presented such an argument?

***What would you think about implementing this in your local church or school?***

As I’ve said repeatedly, the option to be searched is completely voluntary. If such screening were done by my local church or school I could make the decision not to go to there.

***If a man comes up to my daughter on the street and touches her inappropriately it's considered a crime. Do it in the airport and it's considered necessary for individual safety. ***

Your analogy does not hold. The man on the street presumably does not have your consent to touch her. When you buy a plane ticket, however, you are entering a contractual agreement that allows TSA agents to search your person and your luggage.

***And your comment about TSA confiscating 2 guns and dozens of knives everyday is pitiful.
. . . If by chance I forget to take it out of my pocket before attempting to fly then somehow I've become a terrorist intent on harming myself and others.***

How do we know when someone is doing it by accident and when they intend it for harm? Beside, according to Stuart and others TSA is only performing “security theater” so they should not be locating such weapons at all.

@Rich Horton ***The "right" at stake here is not some invented "right to fly", but the basic right to have our personal dignity. I am shocked and angered to find a writer at First Things who cares so little for human dignity.

And I am shocked and angered that so many intelligent people keep claiming that it is a violation of human dignity to submit to a voluntary search.

I'm more worried about what happens next, Joe. Right now, I can choose not to fly. Right now, I can choose to avoid showing myself naked for the sake of security and choose the pat-down instead - at least this gives me the ability to speak to my screening agent and not just be looked at as a potential bomb-carrying device. But what's next? Will we also screen at bus stops? Subways? Tunnels? Federal buildings? If we allow this in airports, then it might become a slippery slope with no transportation options 'left' - in our own country! And yeah, it took a decade to get here. But things snowball, and they always go faster at the bottom of the hill. I'm not thinking of myself or my inconvenience, but of my children. Hey - if you say it's a slow-slipping slope, maybe even my grand or great-grandchildren. But are they not worth thinking of?

I'm also worried about de-humanization. Those taken to concentration camps had their clothes removed. They were given numbers in place of names. These measures were intended to be dehumanizing, and they often had that effect. I'm worried about the TSA agents who view b&w naked bodies all day, and those who administer pat-downs of everyone under the sun. Do I think they will lust after people? No. Do I think that they, too, will experience dehumanization? Yes. Let's not train ourselves to think that personal privacy is ours to give away, but instead a necessary thing in a fallen society. Let's not train others to think of us as 'just bodies.'

What options do we have? Other technology. It's out there. Or, let's pretend it's not. Let's invent it! In the meantime, I'd rather a terrorist kill all of us (every last one... there's your number) than destroy ourselves. Whatare you so afraid of? Dying? There are worse things, and our servicemen prove that every day.

I'm with you in one respect; profiling isn't the answer.

As to those who say the current screening process is merely "security theater" seem to be unaware that the TSA confiscates 2 guns and a dozen knives *every day*.How many of those weapons were found by normal metal detectors and scanners? ... The new procedures are ineffective and unnecessary.

Also, air travel is neither a positive nor a negative right—it's not a right at all. To claim that we are losing our "liberty" by submitting to security screenings is ridiculous and is an affront to those who have sacrificed to protect our true liberties.No, you are wrong. Owning a house is also not a right. But that doesn't mean the government can simply go into your house with an unreasonable security screening. Driving a car is not a right. But that doesn't mean the government may search someone's car without evidence. You seem to believe the government's power to ensure our safety is unlimited. You are wrong, and to claim that the suggestion that these particular government practices infringe on our liberty is "ridiculous" and "an affront" to soldiers is, frankly, jumping the shark in this discussion.

Tell me, Joe. Are there any limits to what the government may do to ensure our safety? Should any objections to security policy be met with a facile "how many lives are you willing to trade for privacy" remark?

I wish we would think about how we might protect the lives of our fellow man rather than about how we are being inconvenienced.And I wish we would realize that security isn't the only or even primary consideration in the lives of people. Nor should it be.

So you are willing to not only allow virtual images of your nude body to be viewed by unseen people in another room and have your genitals groped, but to allow unknown federal employees to gawk at the bodies of your wife and children and to have their genitals groped so that you can be marginally safer? How that is not sheer cowardice?

Having reviewed Joe Carter's comments, I can only conclude that he has not seriously reviewed the critiques offered of the current TSA policy and is unwilling to take them seriously. Apparently my standing as a defense analyst with more than thirty years of experience is outweighed by Mr. Carter's inability to understand the difference between behavioral and racial profiling.

But, from the frequency and vehemence of Mr. Carter's interventions, it would appear that some of his critics have hit a nerve.

@Catholic Mom ***If we allow this in airports, then it might become a slippery slope with no transportation options 'left' - in our own country!***

I'll admit I've been dismissive of this line of reasoning, so I'll try to explain why it is not legally possible.

The reason searches are considered "reasonable" in airports is because (a) alternate forms of transportation (almost) always exists and (b) the obedience to the reasonable search is predicated on the need for transportation security of others.

If nothing else, there is no legal rationale for (b) on buses, trains, etc. so the slippery slope is not applicable.

***In the meantime, I'd rather a terrorist kill all of us (every last one... there's your number) than destroy ourselves. ***

Again, let's go easy on the hyperbole. It's getting rather ridiculous. I don't for a second believe that you'd be willing to allow yourself and your children to be killed *now* for some hypothetical violation of rights in the *future*.

@Thomas ***. . . and have your genitals groped, but to allow unknown federal employees to gawk at the bodies of your wife and children and to have their genitals groped so that you can be marginally safer? How that is not sheer cowardice?***

Let's stop bearing false witness. The claim that all TSA agents are "groping" (sexually fondling another person) passengers is a scurrilous lie and must stop. It's uncivil and un-Christian.

@Stuart ***Apparently my standing as a defense analyst with more than thirty years of experience is outweighed by Mr. Carter's inability to understand the difference between behavioral and racial profiling. ***

Your standing as a defense analyst is irrelevant unless you can show some real world application of behavioral profiling that does not include a racial/ethnic component. Do you have such an example?

"As to those who say the current screening process is merely "security theater" seem to be unaware that the TSA confiscates 2 guns and a dozen knives *every day*.How many of those weapons were found by normal metal detectors and scanners? ... The new procedures are ineffective and unnecessary."

Albert,

Almost all of those weapons were found by ordinary screening and metal detectors. The present enhanced security measures have not been in effect long enough to have any effect on the statistics. Moreover, of the "dozen knives" confiscated each day, most are just ordinary pen knives, not weapons.

As someone who studies counterterrorism for a living, it is my considered professional opinion that most of what TSA does--not merely full body scans and pat downs--does not contribute in any meaningful way to our security, and may in fact harm it by creating a false sense of security and also by creating a target rich environment in the unsecured areas where people are massed before going through security.

Think about it.

I am willing to risk sacrificing myself and my family members so that we don’t have to go through the indignity of a pat-down. Why? Because I am a man. I don't need some government idiot to protect my life and my family. I will do that myself.

45,000 Americans die in highway accidents every year. I'll roll the dice on air travel without government "security".

Yeah, this is truly the DUMBEST thing I've ever read from First Things. It's mind-numbingly dumb. I'm not even necessarily in favor of the profiling option, but I'm shocked that someone could publish something so poorly reasoned (on this of all websites).

Consider ridiculous statements like this: "...the attackers could have been from any of those countries..." But they weren't. They *could* have been, just as 9/11 *could* not have happened. But it did. And they were all from Saudi Arabia.

Or consider the bad math here: "Israel has fewer than 50 flights a day, the U.S. has approximately 35,000; Israel has seven airports, the U.S. has more than 400; Israel has 9 million air travelers per year; the U.S. has 800 million" So the U.S. has 35,000*365 = 12.8 million flights per year, each with 800 million / 12.8 million = 63 passengers on board. Israel has 50*365 = 18,250 flights per year, each with 9 million / 18,250 = 493 passengers on board. Besides not making any sense at all, the numbers actually make it seem like it would be less costly in the U.S., since the average flight requires screening an eighth of the number of passengers.

The errors in this passage leap from the page: "The profilers in Israel are all highly trained, college-educated, and speak a minimum of two languages. Could we find enough qualified applicants to fill the positions? Would we be willing to pay the additional cost?"

Also, as I'm sure will be pointed out over and over again, this whole argument presents a false dichotomy.

And, finally: you can't fight terrorism. That's what makes it terrorism.

Wow. I never expected something this dumb from FT. Please don't let this creep into the magazine, or I'll have nothing to read.

Last comment: Joe, you should perhaps be humble enough to realize that if so many intelligent people disagree with you, maybe it's you that's wrong. Or, at least, maybe there's enough to what they're saying that it's embarrassing for you to laugh at them.

***My 17-year-old daughter went through the pat-down process this morning. I asked her if she felt that process was degrading, demeaning, or intrusive. She didn't think so, but then, she was raised to consider other people's safety ahead of her hang-ups about personal space. To each his own, I guess. ***

Not sure what you meant by this, other than: "My daughter doesn't find the pat down offensive because I raised her well and she has the virtue of not being an selfish egoist, as you evidently are. And your parents probably didn't raise you well." Or, did I misunderstand you?

You're completely ignoring everyone's actual arguments and instead focusing on misrepresentations of them - what you think or want people to be saying instead of what they are. In other words, you're tearing down straw men.

No one said that we shouldn't be inconvenienced in the least. Straw man.

No one said that we should profile based on race. Straw man.

No one has said that the pat down isn't in some sense voluntary. But it reveals a lack of nuance and wisdom to say that by entering into a contract we therefore must agree 100% with everything in it, or that everything in it is either good or neutral. Or that if we have a problem with the terms then we must walk away from the whole venture, as if the terms were so manifestly right and true that there was no other option. That is nonsense.

I'll repeat my stance: I don't think it's correct to say that because one doesn't deserve or isn't owed A, therefore one may be required to do something inherently wrong in order to obtain or use A. In other words, it is false to say that "because we don't have an intrinsic right to fly, therefore in order to fly we may rightly be subjected to something inherently wrong."

I think you would agree with that, but maybe not. As I understand you, your position is that there's nothing inherently wrong with the TSAs methods. But that's precisely what is being debated. (It's shocking and angering that you don't even have the patience to try to understand what your opponents in argument are arguing. Instead you mock them. Shame on you. Have a bit more respect for the good-intentioned readers of First Things.)

And even if the scanners and pat-downs weren't inherently wrong, it's still up for debate whether they're rational or effective. So there's little basis for your contention that the only people who could have a problem with them are the prissy elite.

Joe,

Merriam-Webster defines "grope" as "to feel about blindly or uncertainly in search." The new patdowns procedures require (not permit but require) screeners to have contact with passenger's genitals through their clothing in search for prohibited items. You either haven't done your research or you don't know the the meaning of the word "grope". In any case, the fact that you seem to have no problem allowing the bodies of those you're responsible to be gawked at in the nude or groped in intimate places for just a slight degree of increased safety is highly disturbing. It may sound sexist these days, but men should defend the dignity and bodily integrity of the women.

I note that no one has yet offered an explanation of purely behavioral profiling in response to Joe's follow-up comment. (At least, not that my scanning of this long comments page could reveal).

Profiling just fails out of the gate. Based on "behavior" we'd have white-looking, Western-dressing Turkish muslims breezing through security while Sikhs get detained for exhibiting the "behavior" of turban-wearing.

"Your standing as a defense analyst is irrelevant unless you can show some real world application of behavioral profiling that does not include a racial/ethnic component. Do you have such an example?"

Gee, Joe, didn't they teach you in the Marines that when you're in a hole, the first thing you should do is stop digging?

Aside from the example of Israeli airport screening (which is, despite your objections on the basis of scale, the model we should be following), both police and intelligence agencies, and even the military, use non-racial profiling techniques all the time. The whole basis, for instance, of community policing, is cops should know who does and does not belong in the neighborhood, and what types of behavior are and are not suspicious. When a car is seen circling a block several times, or when a group of young men nobody recognizes go by a store several times, cops typically go over and ask some questions. They are profiling on behavior, not race. Actions that don't fit into the norm raise suspicions, and suspicions should be investigated.

Intelligence agencies take this several steps further by looking at a person's contacts, communications, financial transactions, travel history and so forth, in order to determine whether a person is or is not likely to be involved with a terrorist organization.

The military's counter-insurgency strategy uses a variation of community policing. It profiles everybody in a neighborhood, and since all the people (at least to American eyes) look alike, race is not a factor at all.

As I said right off the bat, my main problem with TSA is it is ineffectual. It is ineffectual because it relies on technology manned by low-grade personnel, and on a rigid set of policies that treat all people the same. As a result, resources are spread too thin, too much time is spent looking at low risk subjects, not enough time on high rise ones. Indeed, the whole purpose of the TSA policy is to deny the existence of high risk subjects by assuming that EVERYONE is a potential terrorist.

This is just a perverse denial of reality, on par with the mantra we heard during the 1990s that "AIDS is a disease that affects everybody". This, no doubt, assuaged the feelings of the GBLT community and the guardians of what passes for rectitude in our society today, but it was a lie that resulted in a poor response strategy that did not focus on high risk groups and discarded strategies of public health that had been in place and working well for a century or more--in the name of not singling out any one group. Now we repeat the error in our approach to terrorism.

I've seen it all, Joe, many, many times. You may say my qualifications to judge are irrelevant. Just what are your qualifications, and why should I pay heed to them?

This is a disappointing article that shows FirstThings is missing its moral compass here.

I oppose the new TSA regulations for the following reasons:

1) The new scanners are an invasion of privacy and decorum;

2) The new frisking tactics are an invasion of privacy and modesty;

3) The new system is unnecessary. The previous security system worked. Even the “Fruit of kaboom” underwear bomber’s plan did not work, as he had to go to such great lengths to circumvent the system that his bomb was not functional.

4) Last but least, the new system is too costly. Specially trained dogs could be much more effective and cost-effective.

In sum, count me with the growing group of Americans fed up with the erosion of our modesty and yes, our liberty. To borrow from Patrick Henry, I say... Give me modesty, or give me death!

"On September 11, 2001, nineteen men armed with knives and boxcutters were able to board four aircraft in three different airports without setting off the metal detectors used for passenger screening. They commandeered four aircraft and used the planes to kill nearly 3,000 and injured more than 6,000 Americans."

But the barn door is closed now. Before the WTC crash, the assumption was that hijackers would commandeer the plane and take it somewhere. Now it's clear that the presumption is that a hijacker will crash the plane into something. The passengers and crew will not cooperate anymore. Commandeering a passenger flight and turning the plane into a weapon simply won't work anymore.

Heck, it failed later the same day - I assume you're read about Flight 93? Richard Reid, the 'shoe bomber', was apprehended by fellow passengers. So was the underwear bomber. And note, those latter two attempts were to destroy the plane, not commandeer it.

9/11 can't happen again. Keeping explosives off planes is a laudable goal, but current techniques are effective and others have pointed out more attractive alternatives for terrorists.

As the security expert Bruce Schneier puts it, "[I]t is largely unnecessary to trade civil liberties for security... the best security measures --reinforcing the airplane cockpit door, putting barricades and guards around important buildings, improving authentication for telephone and Internet banking --have no effect on civil liberties. Broad surveillance is a mark of bad security."

@Brian ***This is a disappointing article that shows FirstThings is missing its moral compass here.***

Because I believe that love of neighbor trumps a right to "privacy" it shows that "FirstThings is missing its moral compass"? Well, okay then.

Let's not pretend that the word is being used in any other sense other than "an act or instance of sexually fondling another person." I never said anything about sexually fondling anyone else, nor did I imply that I was using the term in any way other than its primary definition. For you to suggest that this is true is disingenuous.

I'll state my case more precisely then. There is a problem when a man approves of government officials touching his sexual organs through clothing or otherwise (and there have been cases where officials reached underneath the clothing of the passengers), those of his wife, or those of his children because he thinks it might make him or her a little bit safer. Sorry to be crass, but that's the truth of the matter. It's shameful for government officials to touch people's sexual organs, but it's more shameful for those who are responsible for safeguarding the dignity of their family to willingly submit their family members to such assaults on their dignity.

@ John Henry ***Last comment: Joe, you should perhaps be humble enough to realize that if so many intelligent people disagree with you, maybe it's you that's wrong. ***

I'm certainly open to be proven wrong. But the comments in this thread seem to be based on emotion rather than reason.

***Or, did I misunderstand you?***

My point is two-fold: (1) Unlike 99% of the commenter on this thread, my daughter has actually experienced the pat-downs so she is a better source—for me—of what they actually entail and (2) even at 17, she understands why the measures are necessary. For her, as for me, you sometimes need to make personal sacrifices for the good of your neighbor. Not everyone agrees with that sentiment, as many commenters have admitted. So as I said: To each his own.

***No one said that we shouldn't be inconvenienced in the least. Straw man. ***

True, no one in this comment thread has said that. In fact, I don't think I claimed they did.

***No one said that we should profile based on race. Straw man.***

After reading through the comments, I see that you are right. No one has come out in favor of profiling based on race (I must have been confusing it with a discussion on the ROFTERS twitter feed). The problem is that people seem not to understand that there is currently no form of profiling being done in any airport in the world that does not rely on racial and ethnic profiling.

I admit that I'm reading into the term what is commonly claimed. I don't understand what other profiling there could be. Non-race/ethnic based behavioral profiling would not have identified the 9/11 hijackers, so who would it identify?


***No one has said that the pat down isn't in some sense voluntary. ***

I'm not sure what "in some sense" means. Either you volunteer to be searched or you don't.

***But it reveals a lack of nuance and wisdom to say that by entering into a contract we therefore must agree 100% with everything in it, or that everything in it is either good or neutral.***

I never said it did. I'm just flummoxed that people are acting as if their *rights are being violated* when they accept the searches voluntarily. If someone wants to argue that searches *do not* violate their rights, their liberty, etc. but that they should not be done because of Reason X, then I'm willing to respectfully listen to that argument. But nobody is making that argument.


***In other words, it is false to say that "because we don't have an intrinsic right to fly, therefore in order to fly we may rightly be subjected to something inherently wrong."***

I completely agree. But if the searches are "inherently wrong" then it is immoral for someone to voluntarily submit to them.


***As I understand you, your position is that there's nothing inherently wrong with the TSAs methods. But that's precisely what is being debated. ***

Oh, how I wish that were true. It would make the discussion so much clearer. ; )

The truth is that there are a half a dozen things being argued, many that are incompatible with each other. And yet people are making the claims based on emotion rather than logically thinking them through.

Having said that, I think you've shown me where I have been less than clear.

My argument could be summarized as:

1. The new measures are not inherently wrong since it is not immoral to submit to such a search.
2. The alternate that is often proposed (racial/ethnic profiling) is illegal, immoral, and impractical.
3. The philosophical claims about a slippery-slope are fallacious and based on a misunderstanding of Constitutional law.
4. Since these measure are neither a threat to liberty nor dignity, it is good to submit to them provided that they are a marginal benefit to the security of our neighbors.
5. These measures are a marginal benefit to the security of our neighbors.


***It's shocking and angering that you don't even have the patience to try to understand what your opponents in argument are arguing.***

If that is the case, then I apologize. I admit that one of my faults is that I think people who are unwilling to defend liberty should be less vocal about perceived threats to it. I realize that is not a popular view in America.

I also tend to be dismissive of arguments based on emotion. I may be confusing reason-based arguments made by commenters with what I perceive to be emotion-based reactions. I'll be more careful about listening to what is being said.

@Thomas ***You either haven't done your research or you don't know the the meaning of the word "grope".***

Let's not pretend that the word is being used in any other sense other than "an act or instance of sexually fondling another person." If people mean merely touching a person, then let's use less loaded language.

***In any case, the fact that you seem to have no problem allowing the bodies of those you're responsible to be gawked at in the nude or groped in intimate places for just a slight degree of increased safety is highly disturbing.***

Why is it "highly disturbing?" According to you, the term "grope" is not being used in a sexual context. So why would it be so disturbing? And no one is being "gawked at in the nude." A person who cannot even see my daughters face is seeing an x-ray scan of her body.

@Stuart ***Aside from the example of Israeli airport screening (which is, despite your objections on the basis of scale, the model we should be following),***

For someone who has been in the defense industry for three decades, you don't seem to know that much about the Israeli method. No one in the security industry disputes the fact that Israel considers ethnicity when "profiling" (nearly all of the people detained are Arabs and Muslims).


***Indeed, the whole purpose of the TSA policy is to deny the existence of high risk subjects by assuming that EVERYONE is a potential terrorist. This is just a perverse denial of reality, on par with the mantra we heard during the 1990s that "AIDS is a disease that affects everybody". ****

What is a denial of reality is that a potential terrorist can be identified based solely on behavior they exhibit while they are at an airport.

***I've seen it all, Joe, many, many times. You may say my qualifications to judge are irrelevant. Just what are your qualifications, and why should I pay heed to them?***

I'm not the one relying on my qualifications. I claimed that no behavioral based profiling that excludes race and ethnicity as a factor is being done in the world. You seem to think it is, which is why I asked you for example. The fact that the only example you can find is Israel—which barely denies that they profile based on ethnicity—is telling.

@Joe Carter,

**2. The alternate that is often proposed (racial/ethnic profiling) is illegal, immoral, and impractical.**

If, as a small business owner, I find that the majority (not all of course) of shoplifters belong to a certain demographic, is it "illegal, immoral and impractical" to base the majority of my attention to combating shoplifting by considering those belonging to that demographic instead of elsewhere?

**I also tend to be dismissive of arguments based on emotion.**

That is an understatment. Reason and logic (like science) are tools, nothing more. They are man-made systems of classify and clarifying information. They are not an end-all. be-all to understanding.

Arguments can be based on either reason or emotion. To dismiss one over the other is to limit yourself and your ability to understand the other side of the argument or even the full range of your own.

** I claimed that no behavioral based profiling that excludes race and ethnicity as a factor is being done in the world.**

Why must it EXCLUDE race and ethnicity if the majority of terror incidents are performed primarily by those of a certain race and ethnicity and age? Certain races exhibit consistent behaviorial patterns and modes. A middle-aged Japanese man will not behave in exactly that same way that a middle-aged Somali man will. To expect every 20- to 45-year old man no matter what his country of origin to be to behave in exactly that same manner is inane. The country of origin and therefore the nationality, race and ethnicity of the individual must be considered as part of the whole.

@Thomas ***It's shameful for government officials to touch people's sexual organs, but it's more shameful for those who are responsible for safeguarding the dignity of their family to willingly submit their family members to such assaults on their dignity.***

And I think it is shameful that some people are more concerned about non-sexually, incidental contact with sexual organs than they are about the lives of their fellow citizens. On this point, we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Obviously we're not going to see eye-to-eye on this issue, but I do respect your decision not to fly or allow anyone else in your family to fly (since that might entail an assault on dignity.)

"For someone who has been in the defense industry for three decades, you don't seem to know that much about the Israeli method. No one in the security industry disputes the fact that Israel considers ethnicity when "profiling" (nearly all of the people detained are Arabs and Muslims). "

That's like accusing American cops of discriminating against blacks because they are disproportionately detained and/or arrested. That they commit a disproportionate number of crimes is utterly irrelevant, I assume. The reason the Israelis detain a disproportionate number of Arabs and Muslims is, well, Arabs and Muslims constitute a disproportionate terrorism risk. So, there you have it: if Arabs and Muslims don't want to be "profiled" in that way, they'll just have to police their own ranks, won't they?

As for me, I'm a swarthy Mediterranean type myself, and if I were (a) traveling alone; (b) visiting questionable countries; (c) holding a one-way ticket; (d) acting nervous or in another suspicious manner; and (d) not providing good answers to the questions I was asked, well, then, I too, would be pulled over and grilled in detail.

On the other hand, a sixty year old Arab woman traveling with her husband, on a round trip to an innocuous country, with a passport that shows travel only to benign countries, who answer the screening questions promptly and without equivocation, then it's right through to the plane, no problems.

I personally find nothing wrong with using race and ethnicity as ONE criterion in any screening process, and contrary to popular belief, the courts also allow screening to consider race and ethnicity as ONE factor among many.

That you have problems with this would indicate to me you simply have an inability to confront reality. Since I am not racist, and carry no guilt of racism with me, I feel no problem about saying, flat out, that until the current situation changes, Arab and Muslim men do represent a higher statistical threat than Methodist grandmas, and should be treated accordingly. Remember what Willy Sutton said.

"For her, as for me, you sometimes need to make personal sacrifices for the good of your neighbor. Not everyone agrees with that sentiment, as many commenters have admitted."

What an outrageous and sick way to characterize this topic. If we object to being groped by strangers for ZERO probable cause, something that a police officer CAN NOT do, then we are unwilling "to make personal sacrifices for the good of [our] neighbor"???????? No, we're unwilling to make THIS sacrifice for this ALLEGED (and trivial at best) good for our neighbor. As has been said above several times, you're not even trying to argue in good faith here.

And what's most hilarious in a sad and pathetic way, you immediately follow up that absurdity with this:

"***No one said that we shouldn't be inconvenienced in the least. Straw man. ***

True, no one in this comment thread has said that. In fact, I don't think I claimed they did."

You think wrong.


PS. There are 2 different Brians commenting on this thread...

By the way, Joe, I gave you several examples of non-racial profiling: Israel's airport screening process; community policing as practiced in cities all around the United States; terrorism screening as practiced by U.S. intelligence agencies; and counter-insurgency screening as practiced by U.S. forces (including the USMC) in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'll attribute you failure to acknowledge this to an oversight on your part.

My objection to the whole TSA/groping thing is it's a case of horse and barn door. We're always reacting to what the would-be terrorists have done. We're always a day late and a dollar short.

It assumes, also, that the present screening would catch a determined terrorist. They have, after all, resorted to hiding bombs inside body cavities, as the recent assassination attempt against a Saudi prince demonstrates.

I'm a military veteran, Joe, and I'm one of those squawkers who object to wholesale violation of personal intergrity in pursuit of the uncatchable.

Before I address the essay, I must inquire about the moderation on comments here. Most of the comments are lucid and thoughtful , but "Paul R" (not Paul F) and his rants do not belong on First Things. The Tom Tancredo school of bias and xenophobia should have no standing on an RC website.

Mr. Carter, I agree with about 90 percent of your argument and I suspect you knew even while writing the article that praising anything the current administration does would result in a furious backlash from the FT crowd. We have become so polarized in this country and demonizing has replaced deliberation and reasoning. Our security should not become yet another political or ideological football to score points on the other side. How many of the critics here would be as vociferous if the full body scanners showed up in 2008 under Bush Jr.?

Joe,

So you'd be OK with a random body-cavity search being performed on you/your spouse/your child?

This illustrates where the threat to America's liberties really comes from. The treat does not really arise from outside the country, from foreign terrorists and the like. It's the willingness of Americans to go so far as having their genitals (and those of their spouse and children) manually examined because of a minute possibility that the plane they are getting on might come under a terrorist attack. The Bill of Rights were written for men of sterner mettle than this.

It also illustrates the cultural threat to bodily dignity. I suppose your view that the manual examination of one's sexual organs (so long as there isn't solid proof of a sexual motive) does not constitute an affront to human dignity reflects the degradation of the body in our pornography culture. The fact that procedures that manifest a form of power relations where a person (supposedly non-sexually) submits their sexual organs (and those of their wife and children) for review by government bureaucrats would have widespread support would have surprised even Foucault. Docile bodies indeed.

Joe Carter says: "And I think it is shameful that some people are more concerned about non-sexually, incidental contact with sexual organs than they are about the lives of their fellow citizens. On this point, we're going to have to agree to disagree."

This incorrectly presumes that the current TSA security theatre does anything at all to enhance the lives of fellow US citizens.

A false dichotomy.

"Obviously we're not going to see eye-to-eye on this issue, but I do respect your decision not to fly or allow anyone else in your family to fly (since that might entail an assault on dignity.)"

As for myself, I don't care if some US TSA employee sees me naked.

What does bother me is that jaw-dropping uselessness and mind numbing stupidity of the entire exercise which does exactly bupkes except to enhance the financial security of Rapiscan and Michael Chertoff.

And to proof the point of the uselessness of the present method, Adam Savage from "Mythbusters" just demonstrated how he went through the entire screening process and the screeners missed 12-inch razor blades he'd hidden on his body.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/11/adam-savage-tsa-saw-my-junk-missed-12-razor-blades.ars

So what's the philosophical basis for this defense of TSA -- that we must expend any cost, any liberty, any privacy to pretend that we're making our planes more secure?

That's a pretty disappointing argument.

If TSA were doing security instead of security theater, I guess that would be one thing.

Anyway, I don't appreciate being called an elite whiner because I oppose having my genitals swiped by a federal agent.

@Thomas ***So you'd be OK with a random body-cavity search being performed on you/your spouse/your child? ***

Before I answer, let me make a clarification. In the heat of the debate I dismissed a view that I really do respect—the argument for modesty.

As my article made clear, I don't really respect the argument about liberty since it implies that we have a "right" to a particular form of commercial transportation. Although it might inconvenience us not to travel by air, it is in no way a right so there is no specific infringement on liberty.

The argument about modesty is more respectable. I disagree with it for the reasons I outlined but I'll try to clarify a bit more.

If I thought I or a member of my family may have a tumor on our around their genital region I would have no problem with a person of a legitimate profession (e.g., doctor, nurse) touching them in order to conduct a search that might protect their physical health.

Likewise, I am not opposed to I or a member of my family being incidentally touched through our clothing by a person of a legitimate profession (e.g., TSA) in order to conduct a search that might protect the physical bodily integrity of my fellow citizen.

However, the intrusiveness of a body-cavity search would be something I would be unwilling to undergo since it trumps my desire to travel by air. Therefore, if such a measure were implemented I would follow the advice that I give to others: I wouldn't fly or allow any member of my family to fly commercial air.

Of course I would try to have the law changed by the appropriate means. But I would not claim that I had a "right" not to undergo the body-cavity search. It maybe inappropriate, but as long as its voluntary and can legitimately be deemed necessary, then it is not an infringement on my liberty.

***It's the willingness of Americans to go so far as having their genitals (and those of their spouse and children) manually examined because of a minute possibility that the plane they are getting on might come under a terrorist attack. The Bill of Rights were written for men of sterner mettle than this.***

Since frisking people for weapons was done during the era of the Founding Fathers, I don't think your assessment is accurate.

However, I'd also suggest that you don't mix the arguments. The searches are voluntary, thus they are constitutional. If you believe they violate a person's modesty, though, then you should argue solely from that basis and attempt to change the law to accommodate your moral position.

Joe

I think you make a false analogy. The person examining you or a loved one for a tumor is, presumably, a trained medical professional. I have no such confidence in the competence or training of our TSA personnel, especially considering the fact that the TSA advertises for employees on pizza boxes.

http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpps/news/offbeat/tsa-advertises-open-jobs-on-pizza-boxes-dpgonc-km-20101123_10764472

"No one in the security industry disputes the fact that Israel considers ethnicity when "profiling" (nearly all of the people detained are Arabs and Muslims"

First of all, so what? If nearly all terrorists are Arabs and Muslims, it saves time to give them special attention. Second, if Arabs and Muslims fit the behavioral profile more frequently than others, should they be waved through if their number has gone over a set quota?

An anecdote: Once in coming back from Israel I was in a line in the Tel Aviv airport next to that of a white American young couple who had been in North Africa and had press credentials. Their suitcases were opened and every last thing taken out, their socks unrolled, their bottles opened. It looked as if they were still in for a long process by the time I got through my brief interrogation and left for the plane.

Forgot to add: your prescription for those who object to give up air travel puts even more lives at risk, since a good portion of those would choose to drive to their destination, and traveling by car is far more hazardous than traveling by air, even factoring in the very slim chances of a terrorist attacking a plane.

"Since frisking people for weapons was done during the era of the Founding Fathers, I don't think your assessment is accurate."

Not like this, Joe. And, in general, women were excluded. You seem to be running out of arguments other than "profiling offends me". Well, bureaucratic stupidity and inefficiency offend me, particularly where matters of life and death are concerned. So the choice you offer is to offend a very large portion of the population for very little objective increment in security; or to offend a small portion of the population (who are perpetually aggrieved in any case) for a large increment in security.

This seems like another no brainer to me.

Joe,

Profiling is not physically invasive, does not involve radiation, and cannot be mistaken for sexual assault. It's hard for me, then, to take seriously the claim that profiling is more offensive to civil liberties than the new TSA procedures. It strikes me, in fact, as an impossible absurdity. How is (potentially) less-invasive and non-random scrutiny more anti-liberty than highly invasive and random screening?

I have personal friends who get "profiled" (and reviled) by idiot Americans who can't tell the difference between a Latino, an Indian, or an Arab, and I assume you agree with me that the TSA shouldn't be hiring people like that. That doesn't mean that it's an inherently bad idea to do some sort of (non-racial) profiling, with the full knowledge that it isn't any more fool-proof than our other security measures. I had a pocketknife confiscated under the old security procedures (and not even in the US) because, well, being thorough with luggage at 5am isn't one of my strengths. And my lack of sleep resulted in behavior that was profilable (jittery, seemingly nervous, irritable) and so I got asked a few extra questions and that was the end of it.

The explosives needed to take down a plane are measured in tens of grams. Even if we suppose 100% perfect body scanners, as long as they are optional, we are not 100% safe. That's reality, and TSA propaganda can't fix it.

Likewise I'm incredulous at the claim that there is "no legitimate need for added security on other modes of transportation." Yeah, just like before 9/11 there was no need to ban nail clippers and shaving supplies and box cutters. Well, there have as yet been no major subway gassings or train/bus bombings in America, so I guess we're all perfectly safe.

Reality: that could change overnight, and I suppose your tune would change right along with it. While I think air transportation should have more security than trains, it does not follow from that that the new TSA screening is necessary, and it certainly doesn't mean that we're prepared for the next major terrorist attack on US soil. There are plenty of weak points out there, and it only takes a little observation and imagination to find some that would be easy to exploit.

"A hundred and twenty years ago airplanes didn’t even exist. Forty years ago, air travel was a luxury reserved for the wealthy." And today, most people can't get or keep a job without motorized transport because of how we've built out our infrastructure, both urban and suburban. Real-life choices should not be treated so simplistically.

I'm happy to throw my lot in with Tim, Stuart Koehl, Albert, B. Lewis, Thomas, John Henry, and the rest. The TSA is playing games, abusing its authority, wasting money, and being generally capricious and invasive, and that doesn't make us more secure. A government agency should not consistently engender contempt from the citizens, especially when its officials are unelected. The line between reasonable and unreasonable has been crossed.

Joe,

I do not think you have adequately responded to Stuart Koehl. I do think that Israeili airport security is indeed the best and is based upon behavioral profiling. I underwent it many years ago as a young man and it was thorough and searching, without them ever touching me. If we want reasonable security, we must move away from the most intrusive tactics on the most people possible and start thinking seriously about the profiles of those most likely to be terrorists, which would capture people in all ethnic and religious groups. This would also require something else: hiring professionals at TSA and paying them as professionals.

That's where you're going now...comparing a highly-trained professional performing a medical procedure with TSA agents performing groin pats?

Do I get to examine the credentials of the TSA agent? Do I get to speak with my neighbors and freinds to determine if he/she is a competent practitioner? Can I check for any lawsuits or professional reprimands against him/her? You're stretching your analogy.

The qualifications for an TSA Agent are:

* Have reached his/her 18th birthday at the time of application submission;

* Be proficient in English (e.g., reading, writing, speaking, and listening);

* Have a high school diploma, GED or equivalent; OR

* Have at least one year of full-time work experience in security work, aviation screener work, or X-ray technician work.

This is who you feel competent to prevent a terrorist attack and qualified to perform adequate patdowns? Would you allow a medical professional of the same qualifications to discover whether or not you or your loved one is suffering from a tumor?

Perhaps we can compare the military with a neighborhood watch next.

@Buzz, et al. re: horse/barn door arguments...

This is a non-starter. The implication is that once one terrorist organization has tried something, they'll never try it again. We don't know that. But I bet they'd like us to think that. That either Al Quaeda, or any spin-off organizations, or the odd loose cannon here and there have categorically written off commercial flights as targets is a very dangerous and foolish assmuption to make.

Also, you're not really making an argument against scanners/pat-downs at airports but rather one _for_ scanners/pat-downs at train and bus stations. Or the subway. Or...anywhere, really...the mall, sports arenas, concert halls, etc.

I still think the only legitimate argument against what's going on now in US airports is that the TSA is a government agency and therefore incompetent by default, and that individual TSA agents have behaved in bumbling, insensitive ways towards those most in need of extra sensitivity. This can be solved by privatizing airport security, but...well, horse, barn door and all that...now that the TSA has been created, we're stuck with them. That's the real problem here.

I do understand the concerns over radiation exposure from those who fly often or who have related health concerns. Again, I think privatization would give us more assurance that these machines are being monitored and calibrated properly.

So, yeah, ditch the TSA, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater -- scanning and/or physical checks are part of the arsenal we have when it comes to fighting terrorism. Profiling is good, but only if it's serious, forward-looking, intelligence based profiling, not sketchy, ethnicity based profiling. The Israelis profile, but not based on the color of anyone's skin or religion. They profile based on individual deep background checks and lengthy personal interviews of _each_ passenger.

Mr. Carter,

A not inconsiderable quibble in regard to your application of the Franklin quotation to the military, namely:

"Let’s set aside the absurdity of the Franklin quote, one of the most bizarre remarks the genius from Pennsylvania ever said—the men and women of the military give up essential liberties, would Franklin say they deserve neither liberty nor safety?—and consider how it applies in this case."

Your observation and question constitute a non sequitur. Although it can be reasonably argued that the men and women of the military do give up some essential liberties, they do not do so in order to "obtain a little temporary safety," but for reasons altogether different.

There are many ways in which the airplane-hijacking terrorist can be foiled—
body scanners and pat-downs are but two, and at least the former is very expensive, and probably not all that effective considering today's news story about the man with the urostomy bag who had to be patted down because the bag, which must be attached to a seal on his abdomen, was detected by the scanner and he then was subjected to what I would characterize as an inept "pat-down." Other solutions that were apparently either not considered, or were given short shrift by the authorities, include,

+ the use of explosive-detection dogs, accompanied by a uniformed and armed handler, instead of mechanical sniffers, to detect all sorts of explosives including those disseminated in clothing;

+ arming everyone on board with a "CIA letter opener," i.e, a nylon dagger; or,

+ allowing cleared, trained and screened volunteer "air marshals" from among the ranks of qualified military retirees, and perhaps even active duty members, to travel in a non-duty status, suitably armed with a concealed weapon (this very likely would have prevented the 9/11 aircraft from hitting the WTC). I proposed all three solutions as components of enhancing airline security shortly after 9/11 when the talk was about high-tech "sniffers."

I suggest you need to rethink that part of your argument, at the minimum.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

"How many of the critics here would be as vociferous if the full body scanners showed up in 2008 under Bush Jr.?"

For the record, I was not happy with the TSA policy and procedures instituted under the Bush administration, and for the same reason: they are inefficient and ineffective, designed mainly for show and with the foremost priority of not giving offense to the grievance mongers at CAIR.

"But I would not claim that I had a "right" not to undergo the body-cavity search. It maybe inappropriate, but as long as its voluntary and can legitimately be deemed necessary, then it is not an infringement on my liberty."

Well, there's two issues here. Do I have the "right" to start an airline and/or airport that doesn't use the TSA's screening procedures? If not, the 'voluntary' bit is somewhat compromised. This isn't a private contract so much as a government mandate.

Secondly, you'll note that a lot of people have very explicitly anf very specfically been contesting the idea that the current TSA 'body scan or full-body pat-down' procedures "can legitimately be deemed necessary".

I would be more careful about calling these searches "voluntary" or "consented to." Of course they are, in the sense that nobody is forced to fly on a commercial airliner; one could choose a different mode of transportation, or stay home, if one feels the searches are too intrusive. But the list of places at which we must submit to searches as a condition of entry keeps getting longer -- courthouses, government offices, many schools, some sporting venues, and so on.

I am a practicing attorney. Right now, the courthouses in which I normally appear use magnetometers to check people for metallic objects and x-ray scanners to check bags, rather like airports did up until a decade ago. If those courthouses implemented new security protocols similar to the ones we're discussing here, and if I found those searches too intrusive, then I'd effectively have a choice between submitting to them anyway or choosing another line of work. (I note that the searches in such a case would be less justified in terms of marginal security benefit, because nobody is going to hijack a courthouse and crash it into another building; but conceivably somebody might be interested in detonating a bomb in a courthouse, so it's not an entirely far-fetched possibility.) Would the searches still be "voluntary" for me? Would they be voluntary for the people directed to report for jury duty, on penalty of a fine for non-compliance? Or for crime victims coming to testify at the trials of the people who victimized them?

Or suppose a violence-plagued public school decided to use similar protocols on everyone walking into the building. I would then have to choose between allowing my children to submit to the searches, or finding another school for my kids. Is that voluntary? The choice can get pretty coercive pretty quickly.

And in general, doesn't the slope slip toward excluding people with modesty concerns (or health concerns, or other concerns) from public life, and also toward making these sorts of suspicionless searches seem "reasonable" in the 4th amendment sense?

I see no response to my comment, except the general statement that "the comments in this thread seem to be based on emotion rather than reason."

My comment was based on reason. I was pointing out the falsity of your initial premise, which is that the new procedures are intended to protect against a 9/11 style attack. They are not. Such an attack has been impossible for a long time, on account of the various security changes after 9/11 (and also the change in attitude among those who fly, as various commenters have pointed out).

He who does not know the end cannot make any reasonable statements about the appropriate means. It is not apparent that you recognize the end. Ergo etc.

Would you, Mr. Carter, be willing to see these same kind of security checkpoints on the streets of America, so that we can make our cities safer, not just our airplanes? It's certainly not possible now, but with technology advancing in leaps and bounds, probably by the middle of this century it will be possible for the police to set up screening points on the streets. It will probably even be possible by then for the authorities to track the movements of every single American at all times in all places (cell phones can be tracked now.) Why concentrate our efforts only at airports when all of society is dangerous?

Joe Carter says:
"1. The new measures are not inherently wrong since it is not immoral to submit to such a search.
2. The alternate that is often proposed (racial/ethnic profiling) is illegal, immoral, and impractical.
3. The philosophical claims about a slippery-slope are fallacious and based on a misunderstanding of Constitutional law.
4. Since these measure are neither a threat to liberty nor dignity, it is good to submit to them provided that they are a marginal benefit to the security of our neighbors.
5. These measures are a marginal benefit to the security of our neighbors."


This is terrible. Notice that if this argument is sufficient, then it also justifies the implementation of and submission to a law regulating automobile speed to a maximum of 15 mph, with cameras blanketing the nation in order to insure compliance. After all, driving is a privilege, not a right, and the security benefits are much clearer in that case than in this one! Examples can be multiplied. If this argument were sound, it would be equally applicable to any measure that was constitutional, not inherently evil, and produced some marginal benefit, however small, to the security of our neighbors.

The argument, therefore, fails miserably. That Mr. Carter is breathlessly unable to see why anybody would see the possibility of a slippery slope here, when his own reformulated argument has no reference whatsoever to the relative amounts of marginal improvement of security and marginal intrusion of the state into the lives of citizens. So we have an argument that does not even attempt to balance those two things, and it is supposed to justify a new security measure.

Voluntary? Like the woman singled out in Orlando because of her large breasts? Oh, who would have faced a $10,000 fine if she said no.

"Shut up lady while I cop a feel."

Ah...smell the freedom.

If the choice is between the remote possibility of a terrorist attack during my flight and the certain injury to my dignity caused by the TSA's "security" measures, I will take my chances with the terrorists.

I will not trade my dignity for a charade of safety, and I am ashamed that anyone would.

Joe Carter seems remarkably uninterested in addressing the numerous challenges to the factual accuracy of his premise. As many commenters have pointed out, there is no realistic threat whatsoever of airplanes being used as weapons of "mass destruction" any more (for any reasonable definition of that vague and greatly overused term). John Pistole, the head of TSA, has not even attempted to claim that there is. And anyone paying attention to the news should know that of the thwarted terrorist attacks against airplanes since 9/11, none has been an attempted hijacking; all have been attempts to blow up bombs on planes. The threat of planes being hijacked and flown into buildings is no more; it is dead, deceased, gone to meet it maker, pushing up daisies, and by no means pining for the fjords as Mr. Carter seems to believe.

Now, the threat of a bomb blowing up on a plane is not a trivial one. But it has nothing remotely to do with the rationale for the war in Iraq. It is simply one of many ways that a person of ill intent could kills a few hundred people. As Stuart Koehl described, and Timothy McVeigh proved, there are many other ways to accomplish such a feat that don't involve airplanes.

Terrorists are not targeting airplanes because it is the easiest way to kill large numbers of people. They are targeting them because they believe that is the best way to cause social and economic disruption to western societies. They have recognized, correctly, that we tend to respond to airplane terror incidents with a level of fear that is disproportionate to the seriousness of the threat. (Just try to imagine what we would have to do to completely eliminate the possibility of future Oklahoma City style attacks.) Our response should be proportional to the threat, and should not consist of voluntarily inflicting on ourselves precisely the harm our enemies hope for.

"The searches are voluntary, thus they are constitutional."

"Voluntary" in the same sense as, say, sensitivity awareness training sessions at work?

"Voluntary" in the same sense as, say, United Way Campaign contributions in government offices?

I should think, Joe, that a Marine gunnery sergeant would know about volunteering:

"I want three volunteers. You, you and you!"

Very disappointing article that essentially belittles (and little more) the concerns many have of this guilty until proven innocent approach to safety. This is little more than an ad hominem against those who do not believe the government has the right, even in the name of security, to invade the privacy of its citizens in return for permission to board an airplane. As other have indicated, the "profiling' advocated in the Israeli model is not simply "racial" or "ethnic" but psychological, based on the notion that liars and would-be suicide bombers tend to betray themselves. The "put up with it or go Greyhound" position is a false alternative. Greyhound is not an option of most business travelers. This kind of invasive screening is not only a violation of one's 4th amendment right not to be searched without cause, but also one's 5th amendment right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. To forbid free citizens to move about the country by whatever means is to deprive them of their livelihood, at the very least a deprivation of liberty and property.

First, there is a factual error and mistaken assumption here. Please read the first chapter of the 9/11 Commission Report.

At Washington Dulles airport, 3 of the 5 hijackers on Flight 77 did indeed set off the metal detector at the security checkpoint. We know this because there was video surveillance of the security checkpoint and it has been saved -- we don't know what happened at the other airports because there was no surveillance footage.

The full body scanners that have been deployed are intended to detect non-metallic objects. At the risk of stating the painfully obvious, metallic objects can be detected by a metal detector -- if you want to stop knives from ending up on planes, metal detectors are perfectly adequate.

In terms of profiling, again, read the 9/11 Commission Report and also read up on Israeli security procedures. Several of the 9/11 hijackers (including Mohammed Atta) were flagged by airline check-in personnel as suspicious and were entered into a computer system called CAPPS. Gut instinct is often correct -- ask any cop.

Israel does not use full-body scanners nor does it ask people to take off their shoes or other such things and has a much better security record than the U.S. does.

"The searches are voluntary, thus they are constitutional."

They are NOT voluntary. Ask Mr. Pistole. Ask Sec. Napolitano. They are considered, by the government, to be mandatory. And don't tell me that people don't have to fly then. That's like... Here's an analogy: one goes to the supermarket to buy food and is told the government has decided the only thing for sale from now on will be tuna (with high mercury content). That's it. You can either buy the tuna or go home having bought nothing (although, if you start to buy the tuna and then leave during the transaction you can be detained by security and fined $11,000 for not finishing the sale, but I digress) -- and go hungry. It's that kind of "voluntary."

The government would have no right to put an innocent person in the position of choosing between tainted tuna and no food.

The government also has no right to put an innocent person in the position of choosing between being irradiated (or physcially assaulted) and gving up his ability to travel. It's clearly unconstitutional.

"The 19 hijackers on 9/11 *were* essentially profiled and identified by the CAPPS system. They were all cleared."

Yes, that's because the sole purpose of CAPPS at the time was to ensure that a person's check-in baggage would not be placed on the airplane if the passenger did not board the aircraft.

That's it. There was no secondary screening (not so much as a pat-down search) nor was there any questioning of CAPPS passengers.

Sorry to be blunt, but you really need to do your homework on this issue, starting with the 9/11 Commission Report. Your statement about CAPPS does not support your argument (it instead shows that red flags are often accurate and should be taken seriously and followed up, not effectively ignored as they were on 9/11) and your statements about metal detectors and the intended purpose of the full-body scanners are simply wrong.

"The reason searches are considered "reasonable" in airports is because (a) alternate forms of transportation (almost) always exists...."

This, again, is nonsense. Millions fly all over the world for a reason: it is the fastest way to travel, and in some cases, it is realistically the only way to get from A to B. Try getting from LA to Moscow or Inda in any reasonable amount of time without flying! Besides, trans-oceanic passenger ships common, now are they? And if they were to make a comeback for people who don't want to be dehumanized in airports, dollars to donuts the TSA would be at the docks!

Sec. Napolitano said recently that she is looking at putting these body scanners in mass transit centers -- time indeterminate, but we can all bet on sooner rather than later. And this is precisely why we must stop this violation of our 4th Amendment rights now, in the airports. Then we won't need to worry about trying to fight it as it proliferates after a precedent has been set.

Nora - "This is a non-starter. The implication is that once one terrorist organization has tried something, they'll never try it again."

No, that's not the 'barn-door' point. The point is that, *if* it were tried again, it would fail. The passengers and pilots won't allow the plane to be commandeered and turned into a weapon. The shoe bomber and the underwear bomber demonstrate the point.

Now, *destroying* the plane with a bomb is a different prospect, but that's already been covered too.

Joe,

Sorry, but there is NO defense for the TSA pulling aside women wearing skirts and dresses and letting the sweaty young man with no luggage pass through without a second glance. And until they grow three or more brain cells (collectively), I intend to continue kicking up a fuss every time they do it.

My article was intended to make two broad points—one philosophical and one practical. To my chagrin, most everyone seems to want to focus on the practical side rather than what I consider to be the more interesting (though equally controversial) philosophical aspects.

In the following comment I’ve tried to respond to as many practical objections as possible. I’ll add a second comment directly after to open up the discussion on the philosophical stuff.


***Another 9/11-style attack is impossible.****

From what I’ve seen, this assumption is based on the idea that (a) cockpit doors are reinforced, (b) pilots carry handguns, and (c) passengers will always sacrifice their own lives in order to prevent a hijacking.

Let’s look at these claims:

--The idea that cockpit doors are now impenetrable is not based on fact. As the WSJ noted in July, four times in the past four years, the FAA has had to issue a directive telling the airlines to fix unspecified defects in the doors that adversely affect security. Each of these defects could have been exploited during a terrorist attack.

—Although pilots are legally permitted to carry a firearm in the cockpit, fewer than 10 percent do so. The pilots have to voluntarily take the firearms training and keep the weapons locked in a box. It should be noted that for the pilots to use the weapons, they either have to open the cockpit door or wait for it to be breached.

—The idea that passengers will always allow themselves and their families to risk being killed in order prevent a hijacking is nothing more than wishful thinking. But if it were true, it is a terrible point to argue Do people really want to claim that you shouldn’t be required to submit to voluntary screening to board the plane yet once you are on the flight you have tacitly agreed to sacrifice your life in order to protect others?

***Profiling is based on behavior, not on race or ethnicity.***

This claim is that an effective profiling approach would not rely on ethnicity or race but only behavior. No one who has thought about this for more than 30 seconds can possibly believe this is true. The U.S. has more than 800 million air travelers each year. How in the world could TSA agents observe the behavior of all these people and determine that they are likely to be a terrorist?

***Profiling should be on race and ethnicity since most terrorist are Muslim and Arab.***

As I pointed out (and most people ignored), this is simply not true. (Most Arabs in America are Christian, by the way.) But even if it were, we are saying that it is legitimate to put certain demographic groups through additional scrutiny in order for us to avoid having to be put through the same rigorous screening.

In my article I made the point that if, for example, children are exempt from screening, then all a terrorist has to do is plant a weapon on a child and reacquire it once on board the plane. No one has even attempted to explain why this is not possible.

***Metal detectors are adequate to prevent terrorists from bringing weapons onto a plane.***

Of the nineteen hijackers on 9/11, only three set off metal detectors. All three passed the examination when the hand wand was used. As the official 9/11 Commission report says: "Many deadly and dangerous items did not set off metal detectors, or were hard to distinguish in an X-ray machine from innocent everyday items."

***The government has no right to put an innocent person in the position of choosing between being irradiated (or physically assaulted) and giving up his ability to travel.***

Since many of the people arguing in this thread are social conservatives, I want you to consider how your reasoning could be applied elsewhere. For example, one of the strongest arguments against same-sex marriage is that everyone—both heterosexuals and homosexuals—have the same equal right: to marry someone of the opposite sex. Homosexuals, of course, complain that this violates their liberty because they do not get implement the right to marry in the way that they’d prefer.

The people who claim it is a false dichotomy between choosing to fly and submitting to the screenings are making a similar claim. While they admit that alternative forms of travel are possible, they should not be forced to make a choice that they would not prefer.

***The screening is unconstitutional.***

This is the easiest point to dismiss. The screening process is clearly constitutional because it is voluntary. People who choose to fly are consenting to such searches. The fact they think they should have the right to fly and the right to refuse such searches at the same time does not change the legality of the issue. (See the point above.)

Also, too many people seem to be under the impression that “I don’t like X, therefore X must be unconstitutional” is a valid argument.

***TSA procedures do not make us safer, they are merely “security theater.”***

This is not so much an argument as a silly talking point. If people truly believe this then the obvious implication is that we can safely do away with all TSA screening since it is completely ineffective.

Of course they will claim that this is a strawman version of their claim. They are not saying that the procedures are totally worthless, they’ll say, but only give us a false sense of security.

Before this can be addressed, the people making this claim need to clarify what is effective and what is not and why the new procedures do not increase the effectiveness.

***Allowing these procedures will lead to further restrictions on other forms of travel.***

While the slippery slope argument is not unimportant, it is really irrelevant to the particular discussion. Whether a particular screening procedure should be allowed for a particular form of transportation or in other venues must be judged on its own merits. We can’t simply say it should not be done because it could lead to other consequences that we would not like.

For example, should we do away with metal detectors at airports because it might lead to metal detectors being installed at churches? Most people would find the question silly, yet people are making similar claims about the new screening measures.

***The procedures have the potential to be abused, therefore the procedures should not be allowed.***

Protection against abuses should be a legitimate concern of everyone—including people like me who support the procedures. But all such procedures, even when voluntary, have the potential for abuse. That does not mean that we should stop doing them. Police abuses of searches and seizures is all too common. Yet that does not mean that we should never allow police to conduct searches or frisk people.

***It is a violation of a person’s dignity to submit to such a search.***

As I’ve said before, I don’t agree with this position, but I do respect it. Our culture puts a great emphasis on personal space and we do not like the idea of anyone other than a loved one putting their hands on us. I understand and am sympathetic to this point. Where I disagree is when people turn this into an absolute principle.

If you knew that refusing to be searched would definitely lead to the death of others, would you still hold this position? If so, then I would say that you have your priorities skewed. If you don’t think take this absolutists position and would consent in certain cases, then I think you have a stronger case.

And the whole mess would be marginally less offensive if they were consistent about enforcement. Denver never pulls me aside when I fly out, but I can wear the same skirt on the trip home and get pulled aside in the aiport on the other end. Logan doesn't make you take your shoes off and some airports swab medical devices for explosives, some do not.

Yeah, that's real safe innit?

@Ray Ingles

Yes, it would fail because we're looking for people at airports. Exactly. That's why we don't stop looking.

The shoe-bomber and underwear-bomber were both inept, underfunded, under-prepared dumbarses. Next time the human bomb may be smarter, better funded and better prepared. You just never know.

We can't protect air passengers against every possible attack, but we can do our darndest to try. And who knows? Maybe those scans and/or pat-downs will rattle a potential human bomb to the point where his behavior does set off red flags.

This is why we don't need to get rid of scanning/patting-down at security points -- we just need better personnel.

Joe,

I get the philosophical v. practical thing. I can't help wondering, though, if there are this many problems with the (practial) implementation of the policy you've philosophically defended -- isnt it time to re-examine your conclusions?

There are few things more frustrating for a writer than to attempt to rile people up and tick them off about a particular point—and then they take offense for a completely different reason.

I knew that I was going to upset people by what I wrote but I wanted to do so in order to prick their conscience. While I didn’t think I was being all that subtle, the fact that my main point has been consistently ignores makes me think that I need to restate it more forcefully. So here goes:

Americans are absolutely obsessed with individual “rights” and violations of their liberty and yet they are almost completely unwilling to do anything to secure such freedom.

Since the end of the draft, approximately 9 percent of the population has served in the military. That means that 10% of Americans have contributed to securing the rights for the other 90%.

This should be a shame and an outrage. Yet most Americans are shocked and offended if you imply that they might have some obligation—whether in the past, present, or future—to protecting their fellow citizens and securing their liberties. They didn’t serve in the military and they don’t want their children to serve.

Additionally, they complain that the TSA is staffed by, as Stuart said, “brain dead mouthbreathers” and yet if you were to suggest that they should encourage their children to work for the TSA for a couple of years as a public service, they’d look at you like you lost your mind. The idea that their children would put off their careers to serve in such a menial role is preposterous. For most people, paying taxes is all that should be expected of them.

Perhaps I’m the one with the skewed perspective. I admit that my time spent with the men and woman of the military has made me impatient with most Americans. It frustrates me that they willingly put their bodily integrity at risk to protect people who think it is the height of indignity to be patted down in search for weapons and bomb components.

It makes my blood boil when people who have never lifted a finger to defend the safety of others claim that we should expect airline passengers to stop hijackers so that they don’t have to suffer the indignity of a pat-down.

I know it’s a bit silly, but I truly love my fellow Americans and it offends me when people dismiss legitimate concerns about their safety. I take this stuff way more personally than I should.

That is why, I confess, my reactions on this thread have been based on frustration. For me, this controversy is more about a pampered people who think they should be able to do whatever they want whenever they want without ever paying the required cost. For me it’s not about abstract “rights” or personal objections to being touched. It’s about taking simple and practical precautions so that no one has to die on an aircraft at the hands of a madman.

Not that I've done everything possible to offend as many people as possible, let me say. . . I hope everyone has a safe and happy Thanksgiving.

While I'll continue to moderate the comments on this and other posts over the holiday, it may not be as frequently as on normals days. So if you leave a comment that I'm a bonehead and don't see it right away, please be patient. It shouldn't be more than a few hours before it shows up on this thread.

Joe, you have not dealt with the factual objections to your arguments and you do not represent the evidence accurately. Here is what you wrote:

"Of the nineteen hijackers on 9/11, only three set off metal detectors. All three passed the examination when the hand wand was used. As the official 9/11 Commission report says: "Many deadly and dangerous items did not set off metal detectors, or were hard to distinguish in an X-ray machine from innocent everyday items."

As the 9/11 Commission Report clearly states (and you claim to have read it), we only know of those 3 who set of the metal detectors because there was surveillance footage at the Dulles checkpoint. The other three teams of hijackers used different airports and the report clearly states that no one knows for sure whether the detectors were set off. The screeners were interviewed but could not recall one way or the other.

Moreover, the Commission showed the footage from Dulles to security experts who pointed out serious short-comings in the procedures used by the guards. One would like to think the TSA is more professionalized and is employing best practices for preventing weapons from getting on flights but to the extent that isn't true, new technology really isn't going to make a difference at all. If you have poorly trained security agents, all the technology in the world isn't going to make a difference.

Moreover, if it is really the case that "Many deadly and dangerous items did not set off metal detectors, or were hard to distinguish in an X-ray machine from innocent everyday items" then how does that make the case for body-scanners? Your carry-on baggage still gets sent through an X-ray machine just as it did on 9/11. If the screeners cannot tell weapons apart from innocent everyday items, then clearly the weak link in security is the baggage X-ray machine and body-scanners will do literally nothing about that.

I really don't think you have thought this one through.

Mr. Carter,

You keep repeating your own points without properly taking into account what the responders are telling you.

This new screening IS unconstitutional. It has been admitted by Morris McGowan, either a present or former (depending on the report) TSA official.

No screening is absolutely guaranteed to work. There is always a chance (God forbid, but true) that somehow someone will get on a plane ready to do something that could kill everyone on board and possibly a lot of other people too (the underwear and the shoe bombers). Everyone who has boarded a plane since 9/11 has been aware of this reality. And each of us knows that if, again, God forbid, it were to happen on a plane we had boarded each of us would have to do everything in our power to stop such a person. Those who fly size up, evaluate, profile (call it what you will) the people around them silently all the time -- don't think they don't. If someone acts suspiciously and that is picked up by others, action will be taken by whatever means to see that person isn't a threat. Not doing this could cost every person their lives, and, again, fliers know this. This isn't about wanting to put ourselves at risk. It is about understanding that there could be a time when we would have to act to prevent certain death at a terrorist's hands. Opposing the new body scan or physical searches (I think the term "pat-down" is an attempt to pretend these searches are harmless when they are not) does not affect the above (remote?!) hypothetical in the least. NO screening can ever be entirely impenetrable, so this possibility lives in every air traveler who remembers 9/11.

Trying to equate the constitutional issues here with the debate about marriage is futile in my opinion. Marriage is a biological question; of all sexual combinations, only the physical union of a man and a woman can (not necessarily will, but can) result in a new human life and therefore, the term "marriage" should be unique to that unique relationship (of course, with the caveat that an incestuous heterosexual relationship does not a valid marriage make either). As far as I'm concerned, it has nothign to do with constitutional issues. Biology trumps a man-made document. But the actions of our federal government in relation to our human dignity at an airport IS a constitutional question as framed by the facts. So, I see no contradiction; your attempt to make one is a stretch.

@Mark *** As the 9/11 Commission Report clearly states (and you claim to have read it), we only know of those 3 who set of the metal detectors because there was surveillance footage at the Dulles checkpoint. ***

The fact of the matter is that 19 hijackers managed to pass through the metal detectors with weapons. Now you can argue that the fault was not with the machines but with the personnel. Perhaps that is true, but it doesn’t change the fact that metal detectors alone were ineffective.

***Moreover, if it is really the case that "Many deadly and dangerous items did not set off metal detectors, or were hard to distinguish in an X-ray machine from innocent everyday items" then how does that make the case for body-scanners? ***

Because the body-scanners are more likely to find hidden weapons. You do realize, don’t you, that the new machines are not just upgraded metal detectors?

***Your carry-on baggage still gets sent through an X-ray machine just as it did on 9/11. If the screeners cannot tell weapons apart from innocent everyday items, then clearly the weak link in security is the baggage X-ray machine and body-scanners will do literally nothing about that. I really don't think you have thought this one through.***

Actually, I think you are the one that hasn’t thought it through. You make some valid points about the X-ray machines and the TSA training being less then foolproof. That seems to be a reason to add *more effective* procedures, not to exclude them.

@Kirstin ***Mr. Carter, You keep repeating your own points without properly taking into account what the responders are telling you. This new screening IS unconstitutional.***

You seem to thin that by merely repeating the phrase, “The new screening is unconstitutional” that it will make it so. Let’s see what Orin Kerr, an actual constitutional lawyer has to say about the issue:

[The Supreme Court hasn’t weighed in on the Fourth Amendment standards for security screening at airports, but the circuit courts are basically in accord (in result, with minor variations in rationale). On one hand, the lower courts have recognized that using technology to screen for weapons or explosive devices is a Fourth Amendment “search.” On the other hand, the courts have traditionally permitted the use of such screens for airport security as reasonable (and therefore constitutional) searches in ways that give a lot of deference to the national security interest in avoiding airplane hijackings and terrorist attacks. See, e.g., United States v. Hartwell ‚436 F.3d 174 (3d Cir. 2006) (Alito, J.). The basic idea is that screening to stop a terrorist attack is an “administrative search” that is constitutional so long as it is reasonable — and that it is reasonable so long as it it is not overly invasive given the threat that it is designed to deter and stop.

The question then becomes if the new technologies are distinguishable. The argument would have to be that the new technologies are more intrusive than they need to be, and that they are therefore not constitutionally “reasonable” unlike other screening technologies. See Hartwell n.10 and surrounding text. But based on cases like Hartwell, and the fact that Al Qaeda has recently tried to used PETN on a passenger to try to blow up a passenger plane, which I believe traditional screening devices can’t detect, that strikes me as an uphill battle.]

Mr. Carter,

You've really got it bass-ackwards!

I don't think those of us who oppose the new TSA airport procedures do so because we are obsessed with ourselves, because we can't bear to sacrifice anything, because we're coddled and selfish (or however you want to characterize). Quite the opposite. Many of us have realized that we have been negligent in overseeing our government, and consequently, our government has gone hog-wild, taking, as unsupervised governments are wont to do, the power "ball" and running with it. Government intrudes on us in virtually every facet of our lives in ways that it really should not. Government has its place, but that place is not to control everything! The federal government in particular has overreached, intruding into states' rights, into obligations that are best left to even more local authorities, and into the lives of individuals. This is not just a manifestation of the last two years. It has been going on (but accelerating) for decades. The federal government incorrectly thinks that everything will be better if it makes laws about every manner of thing. Many in Washington think that they (whether they are elected or career bureaucrats) and they alone know what is best for everyone else and that the rest of the country is made up of the unwashed masses who "need" to be told what to do in every aspect of life. Many of us cannot disagree more with this elitist Washington perspective; in fact, I think many of our national problems have actually been created by Washington know-it-alls who actually don't know it all (I'm simplifying, obviously -- one could write many a scholarly tome on this subject, and in fact some are already out there).

When facing the threat of terrorism, it cannot be emphasized enough that there is NO system that can absolutely guarantee us 100% safety. If you are looking for that, you look in vain. We must use the most effective systems that actually look for terrorists. It does no good to pretend that we are "safer" because every person who flies is being subjected to some kind of screening. We are not safer because granny, baby, girl-in-a-skirt, regular traveler businessman/woman, etc. are subjected to possible health risks and virtual stripping (body scanner) or to someone running their hands over their entire body. If you think you are safer because of that, you are indulging in false hope. That fact that our government is trying to impose this system shows a serious flaw in our security planning, and it must be remedied asap. Sec. Napolitano and Mr. Pistole give every impression to the public of supporting the needless imposition of serious personal indignities (and this is not to be taken lightly by anyone who believes that the human person is a reflection of the divine and that each person's body is holy and deserving of the utmost respect by themselves and all others) on all Americans despite knowing that they are violating their oaths to support the Constitution. The Constitution isn't just a meaningless old piece of paper; it is the backbone of our country and it must be upheld if we are to preserve our republic. Any citizen should view their actions with absolute alarm and should want to fight those actions in every way possible, in my opinion.

There are many smarter, more effective alternatives to this current, unacceptable security.

1) Yes, there should be some kind of targeting that evaluates air travelers, sifting to concentrate on those who, represent the more likely "profile" of a potential terrorist. This, ideally, would not be some set criteria, but rather a continually building, changing profile, relying on many thing. Far better to concentrate resources on the most likely suspects than to fritter billions on screening a bunch of innocent, though maybe a little frazzled, travelers.

2) Keep the old metal detectors in use. They are just as good as the body scanners.

3) Use dogs to sniff for explosives at the security checkpoints. This can be done with every passenger as long as the dog (or the handler) does not touch their persons.

4) Use other mechanical devices to "sniff" for other dangerous chemicals if necessary (by the way, body scanners now is use are useless for this).

Now, back to why your view is bass-ackwards. You are a patriot. But you are a patriot who apparently agrees with the Washington career politicians that Americans should accept the loss of our constitutional freedoms as the price for some kind of "safety." Heaven help us. We're all going to die some day. Hopefully after having long and happy lives. But ultimately there is no true safety here on earth. I could walk on the sidewalk tomorrow and a car could still hit and kill me. I could choke on a piece of steak. I could be crushed by a freeway overpass during an earthquake. I could die in a plane crash caused by mechanical failure. I could be shot by some crazed person in a workplace. And, yes, I could potentially be the victim of an international terrorist. So could we all. That chance isn't going to be eliminated even if the government were to tighten security to the point where one could do absolutely NOTHING without being observed, monitored, screened, searched, etc. And in the meantime, the terrorists win simply by having changed our nation into a police state. No, Mr. Carter. that is a possible scenario I am not willing to see in my country's future. And I am willing to make whatever sacrifices I personally need to to see that our republic is preserved. I am willing to pay the costs you talk about, but not for your vision of a nation where unrealizable "safety" takes precedence over the founding backbone of our solid, time-tested Constitution. I won't sacrifice our "inalienable rights" to those who want to put all power into the hands of the government and leave the people at its mercy. Government must be the instrument of the people, not their master.

Joe Carter, above you implied that body-scanners are necessary in order to prevent a 9/11-style hijacking where hijackers overpower flight crew and passengers with knives. My objections to this are the following:

1. Neither the TSA nor any security expert I have read take that view. The TSA justifies the use of body scanners to detect *non-metallic* threats. See blog.tsa.gov and read its entries concerning body scanners, for instance.
2. Body scanners have vulnerabilities of their own as is becoming apparent. Some have provided links above to information on this. If you want to smuggle something on your person past a body scanner, it is entirely possible.
3. You are attacking a straw man in saying that metal detectors "alone" are insufficient to thwart at terrorist attack. How do you think body scanners work? The scanner takes a picture of your body (based on backscatter x-ray technology) and then a person sitting in a room somewhere has a few seconds to look at that picture and decide whether he or she sees something threatening. The technology is only as good as the guy sitting in front of the computer screen is.
4. Metal detectors detect metallic objects like knives. They can be calibrated to be more or less sensitive as the need arises. I hope this is not a controversial point. What happens after the detector goes off is a matter of judgment and training not unlike what happens when a picture from a body scanner winds up on an agent's computer screen.

In short, you might generate some sympathy for your argument if you were to show that body scanners are necessary to thwart future knife-wielding terrorists. You haven't provided any such evidence and as I pointed out above, even the TSA doesn't appear to agree.

Joe,

If I make it through security, am I still invited for Thanksgiving? Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family.

"You seem to thin that by merely repeating the phrase, “The new screening is unconstitutional” that it will make it so."

Not at all. You conveniently left off that a TSA official, Morris McGowan, is on record as saying that it is a 4th Amendment violation. He should know.

Your comments from Orin Kerr are interesting, but suggest that the courts would consider this new screening as invasive while previous procedures (such as stepping through a metal detector (or being checked with a "wand") were not.

Al Qaeda cannot lead us around by the nose. We cannot give up our freedom just so the TSA can try out something new every time some terrorist does. There are endless ways to kill people, unfortunately. And, also unfortunately, people keep thinking up new ones. Better to look for those crazy people than to try to play catch-up technologically with their newest schemes.

Also, what's with the rhetoric about all those whiny Americans unwilling to sacrifice to prevent another terrorist attack?

Above, Joe Carter says he doesn't want Israel-style security because it would be extremely expensive and would possibly cause inconvenience and delays.

So what? That would be a sacrifice on the part of ordinary Americans and one that actually has a proven track-record. These scanners are an unproven technology that have rather obvious limitations (and probably others that aren't so obvious yet). Someone from El Al has already come out and said that the scanners are a waste of money.

Is it possible to have a rational discussion about what actually works and about the trade-offs between security, privacy, cost and inconvenience without accusing others of supposedly lacking in civic virtue?

By the way, Mr. Carter,

No matter how much we might disagree, you always have my undying respect for your service in our armed forces. Thank you.

A little American ingenuity - a scanner booth that will detect explosives on a person and detonate. Step into the booth please.

Joe: You ask: “So let's cut to the chase. Tell me how many Americans per year you are willing to let die so that you don't have some grubby TSA agent pat you down. Give me a number. Privacy and security is a trade-off so how many lives are you willing to trade?”

I don’t think anybody’s given you a number. Here’s mine: 71.6666
It’s the average of the yearly average of the number of people killed in the US by lightening strikes (90), plus the number of folks who are killed in regular old plane crashes (120) plus the number who are killed by anthrax (5); so I got 71.6666 etc. Ok, the repeating business at the end is a cause for worry.

And no, I’m not flying anywhere; that way I can stay off that 71.6666 list.

So after much protesting that the objections to his piece were based on passion rather than reason, Mr. Carter finally admits the obvious fact: his entire position is based on frustration with coddled citizens whining about rights. That's fine - it doesn't in itself make his position or argument false or unsound. It's certainly appropriate to correct hyperbole, distinguish constitutional questions from general political questions, and counteract the tendency to make everything a matter of rights and liberties. Notice, however, the title of this piece: A Defense of the TSA. Perhaps Mr. Carter didn't choose the title (though he is the web editor, after all), but there it is, and it is hard to see how he could be surprised that people would respond by maintaining that the TSA's newest procedures are invasive and ineffective. If one is going to defend the TSA, that must mean more than just cherry-picking the more hyperbolic criticisms thereof (as if it is in question whether Matt Drudge is out to get lots of page views!). We get a few objections to profiling, and that's it: no recognition of the impossibility of eliminating risk, no discussion of determining an acceptable level of risk, no engagement with the smartest critiques of the TSA (see Bruce Schneier or Jeffrey Goldberg). To top it off, in reconstructing his argument in comments Mr. Carter commits himself to the position that any burden on citizens, unless it is unconstitutional or inherently immoral, should be imposed if it results in any marginal increase in security for the citizens as a whole. And he's surprised that people worry about the slippery slope here!

Writing from a passionately held position is wonderful; sloppy argumentation is less so.

Nora - "Yes, it would fail because we're looking for people at airports. Exactly. That's why we don't stop looking."

No, let's assume someone actually did manage to get, I dunno - to pull a wild impossible example out of the air - let's say 12" razors past security. (Did you see the comments referring to Adam Savage above?) They get on the plane, pull them out... and get attacked by fellow passengers. Joe claims that "The idea that passengers will always allow themselves and their families to risk being killed in order prevent a hijacking is nothing more than wishful thinking."

However, if they are on the plane, the choice isn't between "sacrifice my life" or "prevent a hijacking". It's between "risk my life now" and "certainly die (along with any of my family present) later in a fiery crash".

"The shoe-bomber and underwear-bomber were both inept, underfunded, under-prepared dumbarses. Next time the human bomb may be smarter, better funded and better prepared. You just never know."

And the 9/11 hijackers on Flight 93 all happened to be substantially less competent than the others?

The fact that it's happened three times now (and much more, if you count fellow passengers helping to subdue unruly passengers) gives plenty of evidence for this idea. It's more than "wishful thinking".

But note... you shifted the goalposts there. You went from "hijacker" to "human bomb". As has been pointed out - multiple times so far - hijacking a plane is different from blowing one up. Joe *specifically* brought up the threat of commandeering and weaponizing a commercial passenger flight, and we've pointed out that that's not practical anymore.

(Do UPS and Fed-Ex cargo flights go through TSA screening? How can you sleep nights?)

"We can't protect air passengers against every possible attack, but we can do our darndest to try."

You always do 55 on the highway, your vehicle has extra airbags installed, along with armored glass and specially-reinforced passenger compartment (mileage is of no importance), along with night-vision heads-up display, and you always wear a helmet and Kevlar vest just in case, right?

*Every year* traffic accidents kill more people than 9/11, by at least an order of magnitude. But we simply do not "do our darndest to try" to prevent every last traffic fatality... because there comes a point of diminishing returns. Some things are inevitable tradeoffs - like weight versus mileage, or cost versus safety (not all cars have bulletproof glass). Compelling motorcycle drivers to wear helmets has a *vastly* greater return than compelling automobile drivers to wear helmets, although the latter would probably save a *few* lives every year.

Can you understand the objections to widespread, intrusive TSA screening now? No one - seriously, no one, go back and read carefully - is claiming that the procedures are *totally* ineffective, or have *no* chance of stopping *any* hijacking or bombing attempt. The claim is that the increase in security from these extra procedures is very modest, while the increase in expense (time *and* money), inconvenience, and yes, indignity is great.

It's not that the procedures are completely worthless. It's that they are not worth what they cost. The money and effort could be better spent elsewhere. Take the money earmarked for body scanners and spend it upgrading many dozen cockpit doors instead, or funding the salaries of many air marshals.

"The perfect is the enemy of the good." People are striving for perfection in air travel security - you as much as say so yourself - and are missing all the *good* that could be done instead. And apparently missing the evil that's being done in the name of the perfect.

I am curious how Mr. Carter believes Federal courts that found tracking suspects by attaching GPS transponders to their cars is a violation of the Fourth Amendment would find the current TSA procedures to be constitutional.

"However, if they are on the plane, the choice isn't between "sacrifice my life" or "prevent a hijacking". It's between "risk my life now" and "certainly die (along with any of my family present) later in a fiery crash"."

This is correct. The pre-9/11 doctrine and advice given to passengers for dealing with hijackers was to remain passive and comply with the hijackers' demands. The underlying assumption was the hijackers wanted hostages, would make demands, and negotiate for their release. Destruction of the aircraft was their LAST resort, which they would execute only if it appeared their mission was going to fail.

By remaining passive, passengers would ensure their own survival long enough for special operations forces for formulate a rescue plan, which, more often than not, succeeded in recovering most if not all of the hostages alive.

But 9/11 changed the paradigm. The hijackers didn't give a damn about the passengers--they wanted the plane, to use as a weapon. Subsequent terrorist attacks have aimed at destroying aircraft in flight to (a) inflict mass casualties; (b) instill fear and sow panic; and (c) disrupt air travel and impose additional costs and security burdens on the system. They have done this because two basic initial security measures effectively took hijacking the plane off the table: (1) keeping the cockpit door locked; and (2) armoring the cockpit door and bulkhead.

In this situation, passengers should not, and cannot remain passive, because there is no possibility of outside assistance--they are on their own. Alert passengers have, in every instance where a terrorist has managed to smuggle a bomb or other weapon aboard an aircraft, succeeded in detecting, disarming and subduing him. In the post-9/11 world, we are all Scott Beamer. I believe that al Qaeda understands this very well.

"The shoe-bomber and underwear-bomber were both inept, underfunded, under-prepared dumbarses. Next time the human bomb may be smarter, better funded and better prepared. You just never know."

This is, of course, a self-defeating argument for Joe. Assuming competent, well-funded adversaries means assuming they will not simply play into the hands of the TSA's "inept, underfunded dumbarses" by trying to carry weapons or bombs in a manner likely to be detected either by the full body scanner or by an intrusive manual search.

The problem, of course, is all security based on finding things is likely to fail as soon as the terrorists observe, analyze and understand the methods in place. The result is an unending spiral of response and counter-response, in which the initiative inevitably lies with the terrorist.

Recently, a terrorist tried to assassinate a Saudi government minister with a bomb concealed in a body cavity (giving "terrorist arsehole" a whole new meaning). In keeping with current TSA policies, the next round of security measures will have to include penetrating X-rays examinations and cavity searches. Even then, terrorists will find ways of circumventing security.

The only solution is a strategy based on finding people, not things--and preferably finding those people as far from our borders as possible.

Andrew McCarthy, a former Federal prosecutor responsible for the conviction of a number of important terrorists, seems to disagree with Joe Carter about the constitutionality of full body scans and intrusive manual searches:

****************

At a number of the nation’s most heavily trafficked airports, in the midst of the Thanksgiving holiday, when people routinely fly in order to be with faraway loved ones, the TSA is saying: Let’s suspect everyone of being a terrorist, no matter how groundless the suspicion, and move immediately to the most intrusive search procedures in our toolkit.

This is a rank violation of the Fourth Amendment. In my long-ago trial, it would have been thought obscene to make violent drug traffickers the measure of every person’s privacy rights. There would have to be something more — some concrete basis for suspicion, particular to the person. Yet, the TSA is making the savage jihadist its lodestar for navigating the threat it audaciously presumes to be posed by every American.

***************


For the whole article, see here: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/253866/tsa-terrible-andrew-c-mccarthy?page=1

There is an interesting fact that I haven't seen pointed out yet, even given the high number of comments. Both the "shoe" and "underwear" bombers flew from European airports. I haven't flown from Europe for a couple of years, so I don't know how they are doing things at the moment, but regardless, this represents a giant security unknown, and is ignored in the premise stated at the beginning of the article, which seems to suggest that we only need to worry about terrorism on domestic flights.
On a different note, I don't think that Mr. Carter has taken the "security theater" argument seriously. I am not suggesting that because TSA methods don't always work, we should ditch them. But we certainly should discuss whether we are getting a good deal in this dignity-security swap. One can accept the basic principle that enhanced security can and does involve a curtailment of "rights," while still questioning if the inconvenience and indignity is worth it. Personally, I doubt these new methods are really going to do any good. As has been pointed out, we shouldn't assume that terrorists never do the same thing twice. Nevertheless, they do seem to stay ahead of the curve, and I can't help but think that the days of using planes as missiles are over due to the already existing security measures after 9-11 plus the likely actions of fellow passengers.
Also, if I am not mistaken, racial/ethnic profiling is pointed out as being illegal and immoral at some point in the comment thread. But if this travel is "voluntary," as you say, and a person likely to be profiled can "go greyhound," how is it illegal and immoral? Shouldn't such a person quit his pampered-American whining and either travel by some other method or submit for the safety of his fellow passengers?

Mr. Carter,

Your assertion that Fanklin's quote is absurd is risible. You refute the argument yourself in your very next sentence. Franklin is correctly quoted: "those 'who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.'” But your analogy to the military members is blatantly inapt. Yes, members of the U.S. military do give up certain essential liberties by virtue of their oath to serve. However, they do not do so "to obtain a little temporary safety." We gave up those essential liberties in order to serve the country in the military and our expectation was that, should combat ensue during our time in service, we might well be potentially less safe. Franklin spoke only of those who sacrifice liberty in exchange for "a little temporary safety."

Secondarily, providing adequate security against a 9/11 event, or any attempt to smuggle loose explosive aboard an aircraft concealed in the clothing a terrorist is wearing, could be easily, much less expensively, and likely much more effectively dealt with by a number of simpler methods. To give just a few examples:

+ Upon boarding the aircraft, issue to every passenger who is willing to hold one during the flight, a "CIA letter opener" a nylon dagger. No box cutter is going to be anything like as effective as a dagger with a 5" blade, and they are cheap. Disarming all passengers is a recipe for disaster. Agressors much prefer, and are much more likely to be successful against, unarmed opponents.

+ Take advantage of the retired military personnel who travel by accepting them as voluntary deputy air marshals. Following screening, training and certification, the first two or three such volunteers are booked on the flight would be armed to deal with any inflight threat, and could be offered a modest discount on their travel (assuming it is recreational travel at their own expense). This could also be extended to retired law enforcement personnel and active duty military personnel in a leave status.

+ Instead of spending inordinate amounts of money on high tech chemical detectors (which were researched, but to the best of my knowledge have never been deployed), man all U.S. airports the way German airports were staffed in the latter 1980s. Uniformed and armed personnel accompanied by dogs (in the anti-terrorist mode these would be dogs trained to detect and alert on explosives, such as might be concealed in the terrorists clothing. One of the particuary appeals of this approach in the present context is that the very presence of a dog will tend to disturb any Islamist terrorist--dogs are considered unclean by most Muslims--thereby creating the possibility of detecting the unease of any terrorist in the airport.

I suggested all three of these approaches immediately subsequent to 9/11, but was dismayed to see the U.S. government ignore any such practical solutions. And I have no personal problem with the scanners. But I do know of one problem that has already occurred. There was a news report in the past two days concerning a gentleman whose urostomy bag was spotted on the scanner and the handling of his case by TSA was inexcusable. I won't go into the sordid details, but had I been in his situation, I would now be investigating the option of suing the U.S. Government.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

Mr. Carter: Although it's not germaine to the larger argument, I want to point out that your frustration with the vast majority of the human race (seemingly on the grounds that they are not interested in military service) is unreasonable, particularly in the face of today's professionalized armed forces. Our military is advertised as a career field, chosen by a certain subset of the population, just as other subsets choose law or medicine. And let us be honest that many who choose the military do so for reasons as self-interested as any civilian's reasons for choosing another line of work. That is, the military offers excellent training, cutting-edge technologies, and great fringe benefits, so much so that I, for instance, applied for a JAG position with very little patriotic motive.

Perhaps it would be a better thing for the civic virtue of society at large if we instituted some form of compulsory service. For better or worse, I don't think the military is interested in doing anything of the sort. I don't say the military is wrong to be professionalized. I do say it is wrong for a professionalized military to look down on civilians who, for a variety of reasons, may have been drawn to other professions.

Your last point is the key. No one wants to be the person who is perceived to have weakened our "security" in case something blows up.

Wow, this is one incredibly stupid, disingenuous and useless article. It spans the range of offenses from intellectual dishonesty (the laughable list of recorded hijacker ethnicities in a discussion of terrorism on an American airliner) to intellectual blinders (the CBS poll on using peeping tom scanners).

Note to Joe - the CBS poll was taken among the populace at large, before they even understood what they were being asked about. Joe doesn't mention that the 80% approval drops dramatically amongst "frequent flyers" (as though flying twice a year is a frequent flyer). Nor does he mention that a similar poll of the populace at large last week had already dropped to 60% and below.

I can guarantee that amongst true frequent flyers the sentiment is overwhelmingly against them, because we know that it's a joke. And the joke's on us.

The issue on profiling comes down to selecting folks for screening based on profiling, plus random screenings. But we won't do that because we're oh so politically correct.

I'll tell you what - I fly over 100K miles a year, and have flown over 2 million miles in my career. Grant me special status as an obvious low risk flyer, and have a special lane without the peeping tom scanners set up for me. I'll even agree to a background check like I did for my Clear card.

(Further note to Joe - no hijacker has EVER been a 100K or Million Mile Flyer)

Then, when all of these other non-frequent flying 80% approvers of peeping tom scanners see me waltzing past them while they're either "assuming the position" within the scanner or being groped and prodded, let's see how supportive they are then.

I'd be willing to be that the answer is going to be "not very".

First off, as Mr. Carter seems to think military service is a prerequisite to having a legitimate opinion on our rights as citizens, I've served in the military, both at home and in Iraq. I will not indulge Mr. Carter's absurd and disreputable condescension towards his fellow citizens who have followed other paths by offering any further details of my service. Our military strength is made possible through the industry and economic vitality of our nation as a whole; the citizens who create that industry and vitality are as crucial to our success as are our military servicemen, and are as entitled to their strong feelings on issues reflecting on their liberties as any veteran. Shame on Mr. Carter for even hinting otherwise; we are not Sparta. His condescension embarrasses only himself.

On a personal level, I have no difficulty with being frisked/groped/etc. Were I traveling in Russia or entering a military installation, I would not object to such treatment. Russia is not my nation and does not pretend at liberty; they may adopt whatever procedures suit them. There are good reasons for everyone who enters certain military facilities, the White House, etc., to be thoroughly screened. The general citizenry need not enter such places in order to reasonably carry on their lives.

I nonetheless am offended by the mass use of these procedures for the general citizenry of the United States. Fundamentally, we do our fellow-citizens a disservice by acquiescing in our government's treatment of them as members of a servile class. To allow such intimate intrusions simply on the basis that a citizen wishes to travel within his or her own country, and simply for protection, is unconscionable. In other words, I find my conscience pricked in precisely the opposite manner that Mr. Carter suggests.

I am stunned, moreover, by the arrogance and condescension that he displays. A number of people who are obviously regular readers of First Things, obviously highly intelligent, obviously devoutly Christian, and obviously extremely experienced and accomplished in fields very relevant to this discussion see this issue quite differently from Mr. Carter. His response is to repeatedly mis-state their arguments, call them to examine their conscience as though only his is clean (he could not possibly be in an honest disagreement with an interlocutor possessing a functioning moral compass), and insult them. He demands to know how profiling could be other than thoroughly race-focused, implying that his opponents are prejudiced, and then utterly ignores a detailed post providing a very thorough and reasonable answer. A stunning and classless display from this magazine.

I note also that no one has fully engaged Mr. Carter on his expressed willingness to accept that cavity searches as a prerequisite to flying is a reasonable policy. He states that he might personally refuse to travel if such a policy were enacted, merely due to the unpleasantness. But has no principled objection to government agents demanding to probe a private citizen's orifices as a condition of travel. This starkly reveals the pale and sickly conception of the rights of the citizen that inhabits Mr. Carter's mind. His idea of "liberty" is a condition that would not be demolished, abridged or even seriously offended should government officials begin demanding to conduct proctological searches of citizens as condition of moving about the nation. By this he illustrates how starkly his idea of liberty and its prerequisites differ from the conception shared by, I believe and hope, most Americans. The only thing more disheartening than his blinkered conception of "liberty" is his outlandish condescension towards the majority of his readers who do not share it. He wishes to prick our consciences. Ha!

I note, in passing, that the cavity-search prospect is more than a talking point. Mr. Carter fails utterly to deal with the obvious gaps in the TSA procedures. It is universally acknowledged that explosives or explosive elements hidden in a man's rectum or sewn into his body will not be detected by these scanners or by the hand searches. Does anyone think that terrorists so committed to their task that they are planning on suicide will balk at these unpleasant transport methods? Of course they will not. The TSA has thus done nothing but to write the instruction manual for the next successful attack. The process will be a little less pleasant than before for the terrorist, but it's not as though killing oneself was ever an enjoyable process -- for our enemies, it was always the end that justified the unpleasant means. So our security has not changed. We are still ultimately relying on the self-sufficient citizenry to stop terrorists on planes; but in the meantime we are enervating the very character of self-sufficiency in that citizenry. The false promise of perfect security in exchange for a profoundly more submissive demeanor towards the state will not, in the long run, encourage the qualities of self-sufficiency and initiative that helped passengers stop Flight 93, Richard Reid, etc.

But it is easy to guess how TSA will react when a terrorist does -- successfully or not -- attempt to detonate a bomb smuggled in a body cavity. Mr. Carter will undoubtedly be here again at that moment to further carry the state's rhetorical water in the name of "safety".

Judging by the heat (and the bit of light) generated by this topic, I suspect that almost everything that can be said has been said and ex-Marine Carter may have spent Thanksgiving feeling a bit bruised. If anyone wants to read even more Roger Cohen has a column on the topic in the NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/26/opinion/26iht-edcohen.html?hp

Sorry, I have to respond to Joe one more time: "Since the end of the draft, approximately 9 percent of the population has served in the military. That means that 10% of Americans have contributed to securing the rights for the other 90%. This should be a shame and an outrage."

No body can survive for long without an immune system. But a body composed entirely of white blood cells isn't going to get along very well either. They also serve who only digest or sense. What percentage of the human body - which presumably Mr. Carter thinks has been designed, in at least some sense, by God - is immune system?

I recall in the past decade calls for students to become teachers, scientists, and engineers to address potential future shortfalls in those essential fields. Were people unpatriotic in responding to them?

Don't get me wrong, I have a huge amount of respect for the people willing to put their lives at risk to protect our country. I'm not one of those who think our country would survive for even a month if they went away. But we also commit more of our resources to the military than pretty much anything else in our budget, and *vastly* more than any other country - than any *three* other countries. As an example, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wrote, "As much as the U.S. Navy has shrunk since the end of the Cold War, for example, in terms of tonnage, its battle fleet is still larger than the next 13 navies combined—and 11 of those 13 navies are U.S. allies or partners."

Mr. Carter, do you think it possible for a reasonable person to conclude that the U.S. military has a sufficiency, and there could be more compelling, more patriotic, and more useful applications of their particular talents than the military? If so, is it possible for such a person to also have useful insights about airport security, too?

"We are still ultimately relying on the self-sufficient citizenry to stop terrorists on planes; but in the meantime we are enervating the very character of self-sufficiency in that citizenry. The false promise of perfect security in exchange for a profoundly more submissive demeanor towards the state will not, in the long run, encourage the qualities of self-sufficiency and initiative that helped passengers stop Flight 93, Richard Reid, etc."

This is a great point from TB. Mr. Carter is concerned about whiny civilians unwilling to make any sacrifices but all too willing to stand up for their conveniences as rights. But when the real security measure is citizens willing to risk their lives to take down a bomber, quiet acquiescence to an intrusive bit of security theater is a poor simulacrum of civic self-sacrifice.

Don't know if this is relevant or not, but two of my kids flew out of JFK on Wednesday, neither had to go through a scanner or undergo a pat-down (no scanners at their gate, AMOF), there were no lines, and they actually were asked if they'd like to board an earlier flight as there were 35 open seats on one they could just make. This was JFK --> SFO, not sure if there are a lot of people making cross country trips for a short break like Thanksgiving weekend, but it struck me that there's a lot more noise among the blogosphere about this than there is either activity or commotion about it at busy airports, and/or maybe all that noise being generated by the chronic malcontents impacted air travel this weekend. I have no idea -- strictly anecdotal observance on my part. So my kids, arriving two hours early to the airport in anticipation of all kinds of showy protests on the part of the "opt-out" people, long lines, overbooked flights, etc., managed to jump out of a cab. blow through security, and get themselves on a NY to CA flight in about 20 minutes. My son, btw, is a light olive-skinned, jet-black-haired 24 year old male who decided to grow a beard this year, has HUGE anxiety issues when it comes to flying, and has a large chunk of metal and an assortment of pins and screws in his shoulder from a rugby injury. He is the poster boy for the quintessential potential terrorist -- young strapping male, all dark-haired and dark-eyed and nervous and jumpy and loaded up with metal. Oh, and his carry-on (no checked luggage) is a black backpack.

So...

Make of that what you will. It all seems like a tempest in a teapot to me. I still don't care about the scanners and pat-downs and I'd like to see an El-Al style information-based profiling system (if only to clear my son who will, no doubt, be pulled aside based on his looks and demeanor someday and end up missing a flight, which will make him twice as stressed out about it), but at the end of the day the biggest threat to our security is that these checkpoints seem to be manned by mediocre-at-best personnel.

@Ray Ingles

The problem with assuming any given set of passengers in close enough proximity to be able to stop a lone nutter brandishig a weapon is just that -- you're assuming people you don't know anything about will react in a specific way.

What if the person brandishing the blade or gun or small explosive device or what ever -- his projectile vomiting brat (happened to me this past September -- what I would have given for a 12 inch razor blade...) -- is surrounded by little old ladies, or handicapped people, or a kids? What if he or she is surrounded by folks zonked out on sleeping pills?

A policy of assuming we're safe because the pilot is locked in his cockpit and we can all rely on the passengers to take down the lunatic is no policy at all.

I mean, a cold-hearted, six-inch stiletto-wearing witch-with-a-b like me can't be on every flight...(I always find it highly amusing I can board a plane with six inches of solid steel welded to the bottom of each of my shoes and that's not a security issue while tweezers and nail-clippers are)

But, yes -- arm each passenger -- just willy-nilly pass out nylon knives and haul that flying wild, wild, west up into the air and away we go. Yeah. I'll pay for a ticket to ride that ride...right.

Seriously -- at some point you just have to figure out for yourself odds are overwhelmingly against anything happening, so we do what we can do to make it as safe as possible and while understanding traveling is always risky one way or another, always has been, always will be, so make your peace with God and your family before you go and hope for the best. At some point you just have to live your life. There isn't a single flight or train ride or car trip I've ever taken where the payoff at the other end wasn't well worth the hassle of flying, and if I die traveling someday, I die traveling. Beats lingering in a hospital bed hooked up to machines any day of the week.

P.S. -- I never drive under 75 niles an hour on the highway -- I'm a better fast driver than a slow driver, and most good drivers will tell you the same thing.

Once again, the solution is simple. Small handguns issued to all passengers at the departure gate and collected at the arrival gate. Even were there no terrorists on board this would have the additional benefit of speeding up in-flight bar service.

"Americans are absolutely obsessed with individual 'rights' and violations of their liberty and yet they are almost completely unwilling to do anything to secure such freedom."

The people protesting these measures are certainly doing something--in fact, quite a bit--to secure those freedoms.

"Since the end of the draft, approximately 9 percent of the population has served in the military. That means that 10% of Americans have contributed to securing the rights for the other 90%. This should be a shame and an outrage. Yet most Americans are shocked and offended if you imply that they might have some obligation—whether in the past, present, or future—to protecting their fellow citizens and securing their liberties. They didn’t serve in the military and they don’t want their children to serve."

Sounds to me like this is the sin and vice of pride operating, not to mention rash and uncharitable judgment towards others. Mr. Carter is wondering why more people can't be like him. First of all, not everyone has the physical and emotional stamina for military service--or for service as police officers, for that matter, who protect their communities from crime.

As a matter of fact we never had a peacetime draft until 1940 when the gravity of Axis danger began to become overwhelming--and it was finally ended in 1973 with the Paris Peace Treaty ending U.S. involvement in Vietnam. The military draft is not an American tradition. It has been an anomaly introduced only when large numbers of personnel are needed to meet a grave emergency. Up to 12-million people served in the Armed Forces in World War II. Today's War on Terror, unlike past threats, does not call for such vast numbers to serve in uniform.

The military is a specialized profession, and like any such profession, only a minority of Americans are involved in it. The body is made up of many parts, none of which need to feel inferior or superior to any other part. (Where have we heard that analogy before?)

Our fighting men and women did not give their lives and blood so that their fellow citizens could follow in their footsteps. It was precisely so that the majority of Americans could live their lives in peace and freedom from fear. It is because our soldiers won our freedoms at such a high price that we seek to preserve those freedoms on the pages of these blogs. We are unwilling to casually give away that which was bought so expensively.

As for whether or not the ability to travel is a "right," unfortunately I do not have a copy of the Constitution in front of me at the moment, but I seem to recall offhand a clause saying that "the enumeration of certain rights" is not intended to "deny or disparage others" retained by the states or the people. I imagine that could include the "right" to travel. I think you could certainly define it as a "freedom."

Mr. Carter forgets that his noble calling, like all vocations, is a gift from God which he did nothing beforehand to merit, and which should serve as an occasion for humble gratitude, not for the sins of pride and uncharity towards those not given the same calling. I would suggest sincere soul-searching and prayer on his part, not to mention a good confession.

I question how anyone could seize a plane with merely guns and knives. Every single flier in America is fully aware of the likely outcome of any airplane hijacking. As has been clearly demonstrated several times over the past few years passengers on airplanes, without any organization or training, do quite well in locating and incapacitating bomb-equipped terrorists.

The 9/11 hijackers did not seize their target airplanes with box cutters and knives. They seized the planes with the belief, held by the passengers, that the likely outcome of an airline hijacking was to be diverted to another location and ransomed.

Without this expectation the 9/11 hijackings become absurd, impossibly unlikely. Unless the attackers included the pilot or co-pilot the chances of actually taking an airliner are vanishingly small, while the chances of being overcome and detained or killed by passengers approach 1.

The TSA can seize as many guns and knives as it pleases. The case remains that they cannot hope to seize all weapons and that it is extremely simple to bring weapons onto an airplane, especially when large numbers of penetration attempts are made simultaneously. The TSA will not prevent another 9/11. The people traveling will be the ones who find themselves suddenly faced with danger and forced to take their defense into their own hands. And that is acceptable, and it is enough.

The TSA is security theatre because 9/11 could only happen once. The TSA is security theatre because the weapons they confiscate are only a small percentage of those brought on air planes. The TSA is security theatre because the weapons they confiscate are those brought aboard by accident, without any intention on the part of the persons carrying them.

We are giving up our freedoms for the illusion of safety. In the end, however, I believe we will find that the illusion of safety will not prevent a new, significant terrorist attack.

"Since the end of the draft, approximately 9 percent of the population has served in the military. That means that 10% of Americans have contributed to securing the rights for the other 90%. This should be a shame and an outrage."

Why the outrage, Joe? This is nothing more than a return to the normal state of affairs. Americans never did like the idea of a standing army, and loathed the idea of conscription, which existed in the United States for only about 30 years of our 234 year history: from 1863-65; from 1917-18, from 1940-45, and from 1950 to 1975.

During most of American history, and in line with our Anglo-Saxon roots, the military was held in low social esteem, soldiering being a job unfit for an honest man with an ounce of ambition. During most of our history, the ranks were filled out with immigrants, mainly Irish and Germans, some of whom barely spoke English, who deserted in droves. The Buffalo soldiers were the sole exception, and were regarded as exemplary troops, largely because being a soldier was the BEST job a black man could get, but the WORST job a white man could get.

Thus, the situation we have today is anomalous: a volunteer military manned by high quality personnel that is also held in very high social esteem. This may just be the result of the low esteem in which almost every other social institutions is held.

Also, contrary to popular belief, and in a radical departure from the conscript armies of the Cold War era, the military of today actually resembles the general population whence it comes. Two sets of studies conducted since 2001 by the Heritage Foundation, called "Who Bears the Burden?", finds that the military is represented proportionally by all five income quintiles of the general population. If anything, the first (richest) quintile is slightly over-represented, while the fifth (poorest) quintile is somewhat under-represented.

Under the draft, thanks to the relatively small size of the military relative to the pool of draftees, and the generous set of deferments and exemptions, the lowest income brackets were disproportionately inducted into the military. If we were to reinstitute the draft, the same situation would rapidly reassert itself.

In any case, the era of mass conscript armies is over. In conventional war, large armies merely provide a target rich environment (ask Saddam Hussein), while modern weapon systems require long term professionals to master their technical and tactical intricacies (again, ask Saddam. . oh, wait. Never mind).

On the other hand, low intensity conflict like counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency requires disciplined, long-term professionals, too--and these could never be fielded in very large numbers because of the quality of the manpower required and the costs of training and maintaining it.

I've written a number of articles on this for the Weekly Standard, which you are invited to review for more details.

'All things work well for those who love God and are called according to His will ' ...

As much as what happend with 9/11 and its aftermaths as far as inconveniances at airports etc :has been unfortutnate , one very good aftereffect could be it reminding more persons to ask for Godly protection ..

Learned the effect of prayer in thwarting jet lag by observing the energy and enthusiasm , in prayerful priests who come for ministry , even after a long flights ..whose hands often rest on the rosary beads ..or on their bibles ..

Almost a similar obseravation in flightt with people mostly going to Holy Land -
a sense of peace and calm ( which was not the experience on some other flight of the carrier of some oil rich little country - screamimg babies and yelling moms and a sense of unease ! )


Hopefully , more time being spent in calling on God and thus thwarting powers in the air ..and many such prayers over all sorts of places ..so that when the grandmother of the President is praying for her grandson , in counterclockwise steps, around the place with the 66 (?6) 00 lb ( 300KG ! ) gold doors , there would be enough prayers for wisdom for him , that he does not deny the truth that his Catholic grandmother should have instilled in him ...

Tomorrow is Feast of St.Catherine Laboure of the Miraculous Medal , another gift of a loving Father, for His children who can humbly trust in His ways and thus the protection offered ..

The Old Testament wisdom , in Book of Tobit and angel Raphel that accompany him on his journey ..there is the mysterious mention of a dog that goes with them ...

Dogs and airmarshals , employed liberally seems like the best options, along with prudent dignified security measures ..

Those airport security dogs are always a good sight to behold ...a little sight of amusemnet for the cranky , tired kids ..and having one on the plane itself too may be not a bad idea ..

and a dog

I am incredulous that anyone so influential at FT would be so prone to fallacious arguments. Mr. Carter is making the sorts of arguments that we would expect him to dismantle were he arguing the contrary.

1) Air travel as an essential liberty: Yes, Mr. Carter, air travel falls under the common good and public goods to which all the citizenry have the proper right of access. We ought be able to travel by air unmolested as we are able to travel on public roads by auto or foot unmolested. The principle remains the same even while technology advances.

2) >> "Naturally, the loudest complaints against the changes appear to be coming from the usual privacy fetishists: the privileged elite who believes their most inviolable right is the right not to be personally inconvenienced. "

No, the loudest complaints come from those law abiding common folk who hold that people should be free to travel and commerce without being held in suspicion. For this is exactly what the TSA policy does: it assumes bad intention and then conducts a search of your genitals to probe for evidence of bad intention.

The big thing that Mr Carter misses here is that the outrage has gained traction by grass roots observations and comments -- YOUTUBE videos and low level bloggers -- that have drawn the media's attention to these problems. Those "privileged elites" take their own planes, or travel through the VIP back corridors and lounges at airports. No, Mr Carter, this is an authentic grass roots movement against the intrusion of the government over the rights of the citizenry to travel unmolested and free of presumptions of bad intentions.

3) >>"I find it hard to believe that they can’t tell the difference between commonsensical security measures and violations of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on intrusive searches."

I am not convinced that Mr Carter has actually read the 4th amendment (or the 1st, 5th, 6th or 8th amendments -- all of which the TSA policy assaults). Where are these search warrants that are required? What is the probable cause and who is supporting it by oath or affirmation? How is the right to be secure in one's person and effects not be trampled on? The courts have already adjudicated on the unconstitutionality of blanket searches, etc.

4) >>Mr Carter: "I respect your position, but there is a simple reason why the screening does not violate the 4th Amendment: It is completely voluntary. "

It is not completely voluntary, because if it was voluntary then one could refuse it. Many of us *have to travel by air* for our livelihood. It would be beyond the pale of reason to suggest that someone should just get another job or another career if they did not want to have their Constitutionally ensured right to be secure in one's person without the requirement of search warrants attested for probable cause abrogated under coercion -- let alone the threat of imprisonment and excessive fines for noncompliance.

5) >>"When you buy a plane ticket, however, you are entering a contractual agreement that allows TSA agents to search your person and your luggage. "

That is not even in the fine print. The agreement is that for X amount of money, I have the right to fly on a particular flight to go to my destination. There are some other conditions listed in the Contract for Carriage, for instance, that the carrier has the right to refuse service "When a passenger refuses to permit search of his person or property for explosives, weapons, dangerous materials, or other prohibited items." (Delta, assume typical boilerplate) and that "It is the passenger’s sole responsibility to comply with government laws, regulations or restrictions dealing with the possession or prohibition of firearms or other dangerous items. " But it is not in the contract to allow TSA agents to search your person and luggage. That is just some sort of legal penumbrum which is being tested, and cannot validly be assumed to be dispositive, pending resolution of the Constitutional arguments in the courts.

6) >> "While it may be an inconvenience there are alternate forms of travel."

For someone claiming to be trying to bring reason to this matter, it is surprising that Mr Carter does not find it completely unreasonable to suggest that business people can just take a bus from New York to Los Angeles if they do not want to have their Constitutionally secured rights violated.

7) Carter tortures Franklin's quote. >> "the men and women of the military give up essential liberties, would Franklin say they deserve neither liberty nor safety?"

No one serving in the military is giving up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety -- in fact, they are putting themselves in harm's way to secure liberty for all. This comes across as a crass insult to those who serve in the military to protect America, and is a clear misreading of that quote.

There are many other fallacies in Mr Carter's article -- several false dichotomies -- but I see that the astute FT readers have already addressed many of these.

Apologies for more than the usual quota of spelling and other errors :), esp. for those 'and a dog' words at the end that sneaked in there , through the lax security scan !

Re profiling:
“The only narrow, concrete, uniquely definable and universally known characteristic that they all have is that they were men” and Muslim and foreign born and between 24 and 39. That naroows the field considerably.

So single out all the foreign born for increased scrutiny; that would free up 90%+ of the passangers to do without the enhanced measures.

“The profilers in Israel are all highly trained, college-educated, and speak a minimum of two languages. Could we find enough qualified applicants to fill the positions?” Yes, if it paid well; especially in the current economy.

“Would we be willing to pay the additional cost?” As opposed to everything else we are already paying for?

Your November 17, 2002, example glosses over the fact that not only profiling but also the meatal detector failed. It also neglects to mention that El Al has reinforced cockpit doors and the pilots are often armed. Not quite as close a call as is presented.

“But if the terrorists were aware that such people could easily pass through the screening process, what would stop them from planting weapons on an exempt group member?” The nu or elderly person or the kids parents – duh!
“ Since such a tactic has been used in the plot of several movies and books, it isn’t inconceivable that the terrorists have thought of this also.” Yes, but whether it would work like “in the movies” is an entirely different question.

“ The profiling advocates seem to think the terrorists share their lack of imagination.” Or, you’ve missed obvious answers to your straw man questions.

“Few of the critics of the new procedures can adequately argue that they do not make us at least marginally safer.” Sure they have, but you mention nothing about how they make s safer – what exactly do they do, which isn’t already being accomplished?

I have two words for you: Go Greyhound. Here are two more words: Grow up.
The level of false choices and ad hominem masks a weak argument.

"“Would we be willing to pay the additional cost?” As opposed to everything else we are already paying for?"

If it came down to a tradeoff between people and technology, I would choose people every time. Technology only works as long as the threat assumption remains fixed. On the other hand, intelligent, well-trained people are infinitely adaptable.

"“ The profiling advocates seem to think the terrorists share their lack of imagination.” Or, you’ve missed obvious answers to your straw man questions."

Actually, it's the technology advocates who think so--otherwise they would not be proposing narrow technological solutions that address just a narrow slice of the myriad options open to the terrorists.

In military analysis, we distinguish between the technical, tactical, operational and strategic levels at which conflicts occur. In general, technical advantages (i.e., the "secret weapon" or the "unbeatable countermeasure" provide only a transient advantage. There have been, in all history, perhaps just three technological "revolutions in military affairs", and in each case, the advantage accruing to the side adopting new technology lasted only until the other side got similar technology--or developed a tactical or operational countermeasure.

Let me give an example from our war in Iraq. Unable to face U.S. troops in stand-up conflict, our adversaries resorted to mines and "improvised explosive devises" (IEDs), which they used to attack our troops as they drove around the countryside in lightly armored trucks and HMMWVs. Our initial solution was to place more armor on these trucks. The insurgents made bigger bombs. Then we acquired vehicles specifically designed to resist IEDs. And the enemy got both bigger bombs and new types of bombs, such as Explosive Formed Penetrators (EFPs) that went through armor like a hot knife through butter. Eventually, it became clear that the advantage was always with the bomb maker: he could make bigger and better bombs, but there was a limit to how much armor we could put on a vehicle and still have it move around.

The solution to the IED problem, it turned out, was both tactical and operational: we got our men out of the trucks and had them patrol on foot, which meant they no longer presented the enemy with a high value target. We did this in conjunction with a counter-insurgency strategy based on (as I said before) neighborhood profiling, winning the trust of the locals, and using them as intelligence sources. They disliked getting blown up as much as we did, so once they were sure we could protect them from the insurgents, they started telling us who the bomb makers were, and where the bombs were being made (as well as where they were being emplaced). From there, it was a simple matter to eliminate the bomb makers, destroy the bomb factories and defuse the bombs that the enemy did manage to deploy.

The solution to terrorists trying to carry bombs or weapons onto aircraft is not really technical. It's tactical and operational. Tactical, in the sense that screeners should focus their attention on passenger behavior, operational in a shift from looking for things to looking for people. Strategically, of course, we will some day have to recognize and publicly state that we are at war with those who hold to a militant form of Islam, as well as those who support them, whether actively or passively, tacitly or explicitly.

It's hard to fight a war, when you are afraid to acknowledge you are at war. That's just one reason why treating terrorism as a criminal matter is a grave strategic error.

I should also have mentioned that it is axiomatic in strategic analysis that any weapon or countermeasure is obsolete as soon as it is perfected, because the enemy, being sentient human beings, will stop trying to defeat the perfect weapon or circumvent the perfect countermeasure, and respond asymmetrically.

The United States, having pretty much perfected high intensity combined arms mechanized operations, put all its potential competitors (with the possible exception of China) out of that business. Most have indeed have adopted asymmetric responses, from the development of ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons (North Korea and Iran), to the adoption and support of insurgencies and terrorism (Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda and the Taliban), to economic and cyber warfare (China and Russia).

In the terrorism business, you go for the soft target. When cockpits were hardened, they stopped trying to gain control of aircraft, and switched to trying to blow them up by smuggling explosives on passenger aircraft. That seems to be a non-starter, so we see a switch to placing bombs on cargo aircraft. If airports become too secure, then they will switch to other forms of mass transit, as they have in Europe. And if that becomes too hard, they'll hit the malls, or sporting events, or rock concerts, or anything were there are a lot of people presenting a mass target.

That this hasn't happened here yet can be attributed to several factors: first, as compared to Europe, the Muslim population here is much more comfortably assimilated; second, this makes recruiting adequate numbers of competent bombers difficult; third (and despite what you might think), our domestic counter-terrorist activities (which do involve behavioral, ethnic, financial and other kinds of profiling) have been pretty effective (thank George Bush for getting it started, and Barack Obama for lacking the courage of his convictions and shutting them down). Finally, the terrorists haven't run out of flashier options, yet--but I suspect we are getting to the point where they'll settle for blowing up a lot of people standing in line at midnight waiting to get into Toys R' Us on Black Friday.

What do you do then? Metal detectors everywhere? Pat and frisk everyone, everywhere, all the time? Forget it--not enough people, not enough time. If you tried it, it would just disrupt all elements of social and economic life in this country, and the uproar would be so intense that it would not surprise me if the government resorted to the most coarse and ineffectual form of ethnic profiling just to calm the public outcry.

It took me all of 15 minutes to find an out that 90 different airlines fly into Isreal and El Al has about 90 flights a day. Just wondering where you got your statistic of 50 flights a day? I am tired of lying statistics being quoted at me as a reason I should allow someone to do something unreasonable to me.

(1) I don't especially care what veterans think about civil rights issues. Am I supposed to?

(2) What does this post have to do with the overall editorial aims of First Things? Once again FT has strayed from Fr. Neuhaus' original vision of a journal to discuss the intersection of faith and civic life. Sadly, FT has become a print version of Fox News.

"I admit that one of my faults is that I think people who are unwilling to defend liberty should be less vocal about perceived threats to it. I realize that is not a popular view in America."

It isn't popular because it's idiotic. As a fellow Marine and veteran of our most recent and ongoing war, I would encourage you to remember that you are not the only person who ever sacrificed to keep our country safe. And truly, I think a moment's consideration is sufficient to see what a vulgar point you keep making when you devalue your fellow citizens' feelings of violation because they aren't showing what you deem to be the proper spirit of sacrifice. Their concerns are just and well-reasoned, as so many respondents here have proven. Your contempt for them makes me wonder what exactly you thought you were serving--or maybe you were simply serving your ego?

Your continued obstinacy in denouncing the selfishness of everyone who disagrees with you on this point doesn't reflect well on you, this magazine, or our beloved Corps. It reeks to me of self-aggrandizement, and I find it personally embarrassing.

Sgt Matthew Bishop, 2004-2008

@Larry *** First of all, not everyone has the physical and emotional stamina for military service--or for service as police officers, for that matter, who protect their communities from crime.***

It is certainly true that not everyone is qualified. But surely the percentage of American who **are** qualified is higher than 9 percent. Let's assume that it is only 30 percent. Should be scandalized that such a high percentage of American who are able to defend their country through direct service are unwilling to do so?

But my biggest concern is not that people aren't willing to serve in the military, but that they are almost completely unwilling to take any responsibility for the safety and security of their fellow citizens. Can you give me an example of a significant sacrifice all air travelers are willing to make to protect others? (And please don't say they are willing to take their shoes off at a security checkpoint.)

@Steven J Schloeder says: ***1) Air travel as an essential liberty: Yes, Mr. Carter, air travel falls under the common good and public goods to which all the citizenry have the proper right of access.***

First of all, air travel is **not** an "essential liberty." An essential liberty is something we have a positive right, such as freedom of speech. They are liberties that, if they were taken away, would hinder human florushing. Air travel may be necessary to sustain our particular form of economic growth, but it is a perversion of the phrase to call it an "essential liberty."

*** We ought be able to travel by air unmolested as we are able to travel on public roads by auto or foot unmolested. The principle remains the same even while technology advances.***

You've chosen a very bad example. Air travel is not even close to being as restricted and regulated as travel by automobile on public roads. To drive a car you have to get a government license and abide by the regulations set by the state. You certainly do not have the right to travel "unmolested", for the police can stop you for any number of reasons.

Likewise, to travel by commercial air, a person has to freely agree to abide by certain restrictions and regulations. Currently, that is an agreement to be searched if you refuse to go through a full-body scanner or if you set off the metal detectors.

***No, the loudest complaints come from those law abiding common folk who hold that people should be free to travel and commerce without being held in suspicion. For this is exactly what the TSA policy does: it assumes bad intention and then conducts a search of your genitals to probe for evidence of bad intention.***

The vast majority of Americans are not complaining at all because they are the ones that put the law in place through their duly selected represenatatives. If at any time the American people find it to be too burdensome, they can petition their representatives to change the law.

***The big thing that Mr Carter misses here is that the outrage has gained traction by grass roots observations and comments -- YOUTUBE videos and low level bloggers -- that have drawn the media's attention to these problems.***

If it's true that the American people are outraged, then we should soon see the Congress changing the law to comply with the wishes of the people.

***I am not convinced that Mr Carter has actually read the 4th amendment (or the 1st, 5th, 6th or 8th amendments -- all of which the TSA policy assaults). Where are these search warrants that are required? What is the probable cause and who is supporting it by oath or affirmation? How is the right to be secure in one's person and effects not be trampled on? The courts have already adjudicated on the unconstitutionality of blanket searches, etc.***
If this is so clearly unconstitutional—as so many people seem to believe—then we should soon see the Supreme Court ruling that the TSA is not allowed to conduct such searches. Anyone want to bet they'll do that? I'll certainly take that bet. As I pointed out with the quote by law professor Orin Kerr, the likelihood of this being found to be unconsitional is very low.

***It is not completely voluntary, because if it was voluntary then one could refuse it. Many of us *have to travel by air* for our livelihood. ***

It's surprising that you'd call my argument fallacious and then commit such an obvious fallacy in your reasoning. The reasons the searches are "voluntary" is that you have to freely agree to be searched. If you refuse to be searched, you can be refused admission to an aircraft.

Your "need" to travel by air is completely irrelevant to the consideration. Many people **have to travel by car ** to get to work. But that does not mean the government must give you a license so that you can keep your job.

***It would be beyond the pale of reason to suggest that someone should just get another job or another career if they did not want to have their Constitutionally ensured right to be secure in one's person without the requirement of search warrants attested for probable cause abrogated under coercion -- let alone the threat of imprisonment and excessive fines for noncompliance.***

It may be "beyond the pale" in your opinion, but it is certainly Constitutional.


***There are some other conditions listed in the Contract for Carriage, for instance, that the carrier has the right to refuse service "When a passenger refuses to permit search of his person or property for explosives, weapons, dangerous materials, or other prohibited items." (Delta, assume typical boilerplate) and that "It is the passenger’s sole responsibility to comply with government laws, regulations or restrictions dealing with the possession or prohibition of firearms or other dangerous items. " But it is not in the contract to allow TSA agents to search your person and luggage. That is just some sort of legal penumbrum which is being tested, and cannot validly be assumed to be dispositive, pending resolution of the Constitutional arguments in the courts.***

You need to read what you just wrote. The "Contract for Carriage" that you agree to when you buy the ticket says that you are permitting a search of your person. When you think it is legally binding or not, ***you are agreeing to it.*** If you do not intend to abide b the requirements of a contract, do not enter into it in the first place.


***For someone claiming to be trying to bring reason to this matter, it is surprising that Mr Carter does not find it completely unreasonable to suggest that business people can just take a bus from New York to Los Angeles if they do not want to have their Constitutionally secured rights violated.***

There is nothing unreasonable in thinking that a business person can take a bus from New York to Los Angeles. It in no way violated logic or reason. What you mean is, as I said in my post, that it would be inconvenient and that you believe you have a "right not to be inconveniced." No such right exist.

The fact that you would prefer to take a plane instead of a bus does not create an "essential liberty" requirement that means you have a constitution right to travel by air without first being searched.

A lot of people seem to be confused on this point, though I don’t understand why. Just because you have a **preference** for one mode of travel over another does mean you have a **right** to such a mode of travel. This is one of the reasons that the government can put regulations on air travel. Since alternate forms of transportation are available, it does not inherently restrict a person's ability to travel freely.

***No one serving in the military is giving up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety -- in fact, they are putting themselves in harm's way to secure liberty for all. ***

Part of the problem with the quote is that "temporary safety" is such a vague term. How long a time frame are we talking about? The TSA regulations are intended to be permanent, so the "safety" they are guarding is not "temporary." Yet people seem to think the quote applies. If it applies here, though, then it applies equally well to military personnel. Whether they are securing liberty for all is irrelevant.

***There are many other fallacies in Mr Carter's article -- several false dichotomies -- but I see that the astute FT readers have already addressed many of these.***

I find it odd that people keep claming that "some other commenter" already addressed my point, yet they never explain which comment they are referring to. Since I've addressed every significant point and many have gone unrebutted, I'm not sure what you are referring to.


@Curt says: ***(1) I don't especially care what veterans think about civil rights issues. Am I supposed to?***

And I don't particularly care to hear what you think, so I'm not sure why you continue to comment. All you ever seem to do is whine about how FT is not like it was back in some mythical golden age.

***Once again FT has strayed from Fr. Neuhaus' original vision of a journal to discuss the intersection of faith and civic life. ***

As I've pointed out to you before, you don't seem to understand Fr. Neuhaus' mission.


@Matthew Bishop ***It isn't popular because it's idiotic.***

It's "idiotic" to expect Americans to be responsible for their own freedom?

***I would encourage you to remember that you are not the only person who ever sacrificed to keep our country safe.***

I wasn't referring to **my** sacrifices but to those of my fellow veterans.

***. . . you keep making when you devalue your fellow citizens' feelings of violation because they aren't showing what you deem to be the proper spirit of sacrifice.***

Perhaps if they were willing to make any sacrifice at all I would overlook the fuss over this issue.

***Their concerns are just and well-reasoned, as so many respondents here have proven.***

Can you point me to these "well-reasoned" responses? Most of what I've seen have been people complaining about how it shouldn't be their liberties that are being violated (by pat-downs) but some other American (through profiling). That doesn't even seem to be consistent, much less well-reasoned.

A good example of non-racial profiling: a pregnant Irish woman traveling alone is scheduled to fly from Heathrow to Tel Aviv. Questioning by El Al personnel reveals that she has only $75 in cash and is supposed to stay at the Hilton in Tel Aviv. They decide after about one or two minutes that something doesn't add up.

They x-ray her bag and don't see anything suspicious. Then they remove everything from her bag, weigh it, and find out it is much heavier than it should be. Further investigation reveals that, sure enough, there is a bomb inside the bag.

Note that technology completely failed in this example: x-rays are supposed to detect detonators, not explosives. What worked is old-fashioned police work. Something didn't add up in the woman's story and so she is subjected to heightened scrutiny.

Americans have done well in protecting each others' safety on the rare occasions that terrorist attacks are actually attempted. They have proven repeatedly that they stand ready to sacrifice for each other if the time comes. As soon as the purpose of these new hijacking attempts of aircraft became clear (Flight 93), physically able passengers began doing an outstanding job of protecting the aircraft and their fellow passengers. It is private citizens, not TSA, that have stopped each and every terrorist attack involving aircraft since 9/11. That won't change when terrorists evade the new scanners by hiding explosives in their rectums instead of their underpants.

I read Mr. Carter's latest comments with amazement. What bile this man spews! I get out of the habit of reading First Things for six months, and I come back to this arrogant jerk. His contempt for his readers is palpable. What an embarrassment he is to this magazine and to the armed forces.

Sgt. Bishop is 100% correct. Carter's sentiment that those who have not served in uniform contribute nothing to the defense of liberty, and therefore should shut their mouths about the violation of liberty, is magnificently idiotic. I believe it is by far the most disgusting, intellectually bankrupt sentiment I've ever seen associated with this magazine.

Thomas Jefferson never served in the military; were his contributions to liberty unimportant? Neither did Abraham Lincoln (the brief frontier militia mobilization doesn't count). John Adams was no soldier; he fought for liberty with his lawyerly, rhetorical and diplomatic skills. Were it not for old Ben Franklin, the French would not have entered the Revolutionary War and our experiment in liberty might have been over before it began. Henry Ford extended the horizons of travel for millions of Americans of average means, wildly extending their control over their own lives. Martin Luther King Jr. was not a military man. Neither were millions and millions of Americans who all gave in their own ways. The doctors and nurses and mothers who cared for the next generation, ensuring that the military would have a healthy new generation from which to draw. The captains and steady workers of industry who built military equipment in our great wars, and who generally power the economy that funds our military, have contributed to liberty as surely as their military brothers. Try carrying out the military mission for any length of time without any of these.

How exactly does Mr. Carter reach the conclusion that he is superior to all these -- that he, and not they, has the right to speak. Just who does this man think he is?

"Can you point me to these "well-reasoned" responses? Most of what I've seen have been people complaining about how it shouldn't be their liberties that are being violated (by pat-downs) but some other American (through profiling). That doesn't even seem to be consistent, much less well-reasoned."

Now Mr. Carter is merely being insulting, which I take as evidence of the bankruptcy of his fundamental argument. But I give him credit for being a good Marine and refusing to acknowledge defeat.

Mr. Carter,

I'd appreciate it if you'd make note, when discussing percentages of those fit for military service, etc, that just over half the adut population should be exempted from those considerations. I may be a bit of a crack pot but I am no so much of one that I fail to recognize the pointlessness of discussing the more modest forms of feminine dress with someone who thinks I should be defending my country in combat.

Kamilla

P.S. I'd gladly apply for a federal airline passanger license if it exmpted me from being searched simply because I prefer wearing skirts. The police may have the right to stop a motor vehicle for any number of reasons, but they aren't allowed to search that vehicle or the person driving it without *cause*.

Joe - "Can you point me to these "well-reasoned" responses? Most of what I've seen have been people complaining about how it shouldn't be their liberties that are being violated (by pat-downs) but some other American (through profiling). That doesn't even seem to be consistent, much less well-reasoned."

If I may diffidently submit some of my own prose:
---
Can you understand the objections to widespread, intrusive TSA screening now? No one - seriously, no one, go back and read carefully - is claiming that the procedures are *totally* ineffective, or have *no* chance of stopping *any* hijacking or bombing attempt. The claim is that the increase in security from these extra procedures is very modest, while the increase in expense (time *and* money), inconvenience, and yes, indignity is great.

It's not that the procedures are completely worthless. It's that they are not worth what they cost. The money and effort could be better spent elsewhere. Take the money earmarked for body scanners and spend it upgrading many dozen cockpit doors instead, or funding the salaries of many air marshals.

"The perfect is the enemy of the good." People are striving for perfection in air travel security - you as much as say so yourself - and are missing all the *good* that could be done instead. And apparently missing the evil that's being done in the name of the perfect.
---

I'm at a loss to find any mention of profiling there. Can you help me by pointing it out?

"But my biggest concern is not that people aren't willing to serve in the military, but that they are almost completely unwilling to take any responsibility for the safety and security of their fellow citizens. Can you give me an example of a significant sacrifice all air travelers are willing to make to protect others? (And please don't say they are willing to take their shoes off at a security checkpoint.)"

Okay. How about the passengers who sacrificed their lives in an attempt to take back their flight from 9-11 hijackers, resulting in their flight crashing into a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania rather than striking yet another populated ground target, perhaps in Washington? What about passengers on other flights who have subdued attempted saboteurs?

Frankly, sir, I find your tone of haughty disdain, manifested by rash judgment towards the American people in general and snarky responses to the commentators on this story, deeply offensive. You are anything but an example of Christian charity. This is the first time I've checked out First Things, and it will be the last time, and I cannot recommend the publication to anyone else. I frankly expected better from a publication connected with the late Father Neuhaus. Whoever is the current editor/publisher, he or she can expect to hear from me about you. Thank you very much.

>It is certainly true that not everyone is qualified. But surely the percentage of American who **are** qualified is higher than 9 percent. Let's assume that it is only 30 percent. Should be scandalized that such a high percentage of American who are able to defend their country through direct service are unwilling to do so?

Given that active duty members, as we speak, are being RIF'ed I don't see where we need vast numbers of recruits, unless accompanied by a vast new budget.

>But my biggest concern is not that people aren't willing to serve in the military, but that they are almost completely unwilling to take any responsibility for the safety and security of their fellow citizens. Can you give me an example of a significant sacrifice all air travelers are willing to make to protect others? (And please don't say they are willing to take their shoes off at a security checkpoint.)

Allowing your wife or daughter to be groped or virtually stripped isn't a very good example of taking responsibility for the safety of others.

>If it's true that the American people are outraged, then we should soon see the Congress changing the law to comply with the wishes of the people.

Worked well on Obamacare, didn't it?

>It makes my blood boil when people who have never lifted a finger to defend the safety of others claim that we should expect airline passengers to stop hijackers so that they don’t have to suffer the indignity of a pat-down.

How many years did you spend in uniform? I spent two decades and I don't expect women to allow themselves to be virtually stripped or groped. It does make my blood boil when people are prepared to ignore a more intelligent and focused approach to security which doesn't rely on passengers to stop hijackers. Good enough for El Al, good enough for me. Any objections to a properly sophisticated approach to profiling can be referred to your defenses of a system which a sound evangelical would not permit his wife or daughter to experience.

@Mark ***A good example of non-racial profiling: a pregnant Irish woman traveling alone is scheduled to fly from Heathrow to Tel Aviv.***

Non-racial, but not non-ethnic. One of the reasons the woman was given extra scrutiny was that she was non Jewish. Had she been, it's likely she would have slipped right through.

But this actually makes my point about the ineffectiveness of doing profiling the way that people on this thread want it done. First, the woman with the bomb was a pregnant white woman—precisely the type that people claim should not be considered a candidate for terrorism. Second, this is an example of the reason why profiling is ineffective if certain people are excluded. All the terrorist had to do was plant the bomb (unbeknownst to the woman) on someone who would normally not fit the profile. Third, how many people would put up with the type of questioning that was required to identify the woman as suspicious? Some Americans already balk at having to ask if they are traveling for "business or pleasure." How would they react if some government agent asked them where they were staying, how much money they were carrying, who got them pregnant, what was the ethnicity of the baby's daddy, etc?

@TB ***Americans have done well in protecting each others' safety on the rare occasions that terrorist attacks are actually attempted.***

I am flabbergasted that so many people keep saying that agreeing to travel by air may require you to die to protect others.. Shouldn’t we try to make the process a bit less suicidal?

***Sgt. Bishop is 100% correct. Carter's sentiment that those who have not served in uniform contribute nothing to the defense of liberty, and therefore should shut their mouths about the violation of liberty, is magnificently idiotic.***

That is not what I said. Perhaps you should read the entire comment thread before jumping to conclusions.

As I've said, I do not think that serving in uniform is the **only** way to contribute to the defense of liberty. I just think that all Americans should be willing to do something (and yes, I do find it the height of absurdity that some people think that nothing needs to be done prior to **an actual hijacking taking place**).

***Thomas Jefferson never served in the military; ***

Jefferson was a Colonel in the Virginia militia .

***Neither did Abraham Lincoln (the brief frontier militia mobilization doesn't count). ***

Abraham Lincoln was a Captain in the Illinois milita. For you to say his service "doesn't count" is ridiculous.

***John Adams was no soldier; he fought for liberty with his lawyerly, rhetorical and diplomatic skills.***

Adams was the equivalent of the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of Senate Armed Services Committee. I would say that counts as serving to defend the liberty of his country.

***Were it not for old Ben Franklin, . . .***

Franklin not only formed the Pennsylvania militia, he served as a common soldier after refusing the position of Colonel.

***How exactly does Mr. Carter reach the conclusion that he is superior to all these -- that he, and not they, has the right to speak. Just who does this man think he is? ***

I did not say that I was superior to anyone. (You really need to work on your reading comprehension.) What I said was that too many people refuse to make any sacrifices to defend liberty. If that doesn't apply to you, then you have no reason to take offense. If it does apply to you, then you deserve to feel insulted.

@Stuart ***Now Mr. Carter is merely being insulting, which I take as evidence of the bankruptcy of his fundamental argument. But I give him credit for being a good Marine and refusing to acknowledge defeat.***

You're time writing this comment might have been better spend by pointing out these "well-reasoned comments." (For example, your comments on profiling don’t appear to me to be all that well thought out. At first you said that racial and ethnic profiling weren't necessary. Later you said that you have no problem with profiling. But you also said prior to those comments that the only effective way to prevent terrorism was to attack all countries that support terrorism (". . .any terrorist attack would invoke a response against all countries known to support terrorists (since they were all cooperating and coordinating their operations, anyway). So, if one Palestinian group attacked a U.S. airliner, the U.S. would retaliate against Syria, Iraq, and Iran, among others.")

How many people who praised Mr. Koehl (like King who said Koeh's response was "learned, comprehensive") would favor attacking Iran, Pakistan, Syria, and just about every other Islamic country on earth? Also, is this really what you consider to be "well-reasoned?"



@Ray Ingles ***No one - seriously, no one, go back and read carefully - is claiming that the procedures are *totally* ineffective, or have *no* chance of stopping *any* hijacking or bombing attempt.***

I never said they did. My claim was aimed at people like Mr. Koehl who think that the TSA is **almost** completely ineffective (". . . it is my considered professional opinion that most of what TSA does--not merely full body scans and pat downs--does not contribute in any meaningful way to our security . . .") and that the proper response is to bomb as many countries as possible.

***The claim is that the increase in security from these extra procedures is very modest, while the increase in expense (time *and* money), inconvenience, and yes, indignity is great.***

If that is the claim, then why do so many people propose profiling as an alternative? Profiling is more expensive, takes more time, is more inconvenient, and is more intrusive than the current system.

***Take the money earmarked for body scanners and spend it upgrading many dozen cockpit doors instead, or funding the salaries of many air marshals.***

Plenty of money has already been spent on cockpit doors, and yet despite throwing money at the problem they continue to have flaws. And we'd need an air marshal on every flight to provide a comprehensive program. That is an expensive way to handle the problem.

@Larry ***Frankly, sir, I find your tone of haughty disdain, manifested by rash judgment towards the American people in general and snarky responses to the commentators on this story, deeply offensive.***

I have not shown haughty disdain. My claim was that too many people do not feel an obligation to defend their country or their liberties. Obviously, this claim hit a nerve since more people are reaching for the smelling salts than explaining how I am wrong. (I'm not asking what the people on Flight 93 did but what people (including readers here) are willing to do.)

***You are anything but an example of Christian charity. This is the first time I've checked out First Things, and it will be the last time, and I cannot recommend the publication to anyone else. I frankly expected better from a publication connected with the late Father Neuhaus. Whoever is the current editor/publisher, he or she can expect to hear from me about you. Thank you very much.***

If you've never read First Things then how do you know that my position is not supported by Fr. Neuhaus?

@David Gray ***Given that active duty members, as we speak, are being RIF'ed I don't see where we need vast numbers of recruits, unless accompanied by a vast new budget.***

I'm not advocating expanding the number of people who serve in uniform. But if Americans were half as concerned with defending their liberties as they were with personal advancement, the military would be harder to get into than the Ivy League schools.

***Good enough for El Al, good enough for me. Any objections to a properly sophisticated approach to profiling can be referred to your defenses of a system which a sound evangelical would not permit his wife or daughter to experience.***

Can we please stop talking about El Al's profiling as a superior alternative? It's the type of idea that only sounds good to people who have not thought about it much.

For instance, who is going to pay for that system? Currently, the cost of TSA screening is $8 per air traveler. The El Al system cost $78 per traveler. Just to add profiling would cost the government/travelers an **additional** $62.4 billion dollars a year.

Right now the TSA only spends $5.74 billion a year. How many Americans are going to want to spend the additional $62 million so that a government agent can scrutinize them and ask them very personal questions?

Also, as an NPR report noted earlier this year, for passenger flying through a U.S. airport to receive on average 10 minutes of questioning from one guard would require 3 million TSA agents.


Currently there are only 1.5 million active duty military members and another 1.4 million. Are we really wanting to expand the TSA to make it **twice** the size of the active duty military?

And do we really want the government to do a background check on each traveler (as El Al does) and to ask us where we work, how often we go to church, how many of our friends are foreigners, etc. El Al asks such questions as "When did you convert to Judaism?" Is that really the type of question Americans want a government agent to ask them?

>And do we really want the government to do a background check on each traveler (as El Al does) and to ask us where we work, how often we go to church, how many of our friends are foreigners, etc. El Al asks such questions as "When did you convert to Judaism?" Is that really the type of question Americans want a government agent to ask them?

If the choice is between a virtual strip search/grope of my wife or daughter and that, guess which most men will pick.

"And do we really want the government to do a background check on each traveler (as El Al does) and to ask us where we work, how often we go to church, how many of our friends are foreigners, etc. El Al asks such questions as "When did you convert to Judaism?" Is that really the type of question Americans want a government agent to ask them?"

It is preferable to be asked questions than to be groped or X-rayed. However, again you assume that everyone is a suspect, when in fact, nearly everyone is not. Security needs to focus on those who are the most likely suspects. And I don't mean just using some flat, unimaginative "profile" based on previous terrorist actions. Security must think ahead of the terrorism curve, not behind it. Constatly playing catch-up is not valuable.

And I want to add that I totally agree with this statement made by a commenter above: "We are still ultimately relying on the self-sufficient citizenry to stop terrorists on planes; but in the meantime we are enervating the very character of self-sufficiency in that citizenry. The false promise of perfect security in exchange for a profoundly more submissive demeanor towards the state will not, in the long run, encourage the qualities of self-sufficiency and initiative that helped passengers stop Flight 93, Richard Reid, etc."

Well, Mr Carter: I applaud your tenacity if not your ability to actually construct thorough arguments or your ability to address criticisms and comments without eliding, cherry picking, misrepresenting, begging the question, offering false dichotomies, erecting strawmen, etc . from your interlocutor's arguments.

Rather than try to dismantle the tendentious arguments you put forth in response to my critique (e.g., it is not a valid argument to claim by assertion that X is Constitutional when the constitutionality of X is precisely what is being questioned and the courts have yet to rule on X), I will confine myself to the central point here which is the question of liberty, human freedom and the proper role of government.

You miss the point about essential liberties. We as human beings have the natural right to act as long as that act is morally good or morally neutral, and that no one is foreseeably or can be reasonably harmed by our actions. The government can regulate human actions to that extent -- establishing prudential standards such as traffic regulations to enforce the civic order. There are a few other nuances to this, but that is the point of "essential liberties" -- that we are *free* to act as moral human beings and as citizens within a social order to all be able to access all the benefits of that society without encumbrance from the government.

This is why air travel is indeed an essential liberty in our current state of developed civilization. It is a morally good/ morally neutral act that, while admitting of governmental oversight as part of establishing and protecting the common good and regulating and ordering the public goods, is grounded in the right to participate fully in the social life of the community.

The government has the right to order and regulate this activity, but not at the cost of other natural rights, such as the right to bodily integrity -- the extension of which is the right to not be molested and manhandled by the government (without probable cause/due process) or deliberately exposed to anything that has any known risk of harm (no matter how small-- the moral principle here is *primum non nocere") by the government.

"You certainly do not have the right to travel "unmolested", for the police can stop you for any number of reasons."

No Mr. Carter, the courts have time and again decided that there must be reasonable cause to stop a vehicle, and that without reasonable cause we can travel unmolested. Simply being on the streets in a car is not reasonable cause, just like simply wanting to board an airplane is not reasonable cause. And you ignored the point about us being able to *walk* the streets unmolested -- that is the more basic case, which you wisely avoided.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To offer some insight into your basic position, and why you are in such opposition with so many of your readers, it appears to me that you seem to be a legal positivist -- evinced by your statement "we have a positive right, such as freedom of speech. "

This is where we part ways. I hold that we have a right to freedom of speech, freedom of inquiry, freedom of discourse because we are human beings. The Bill of Rights does not grant us these rights, it ensures and protects these natural rights against assault by the government. Even if the 1st amendment did not exist we would still have the essential liberty of freedom of speech. If the 4th amendment did not exist we would still have the natural right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure by governmental officials empowered by the latest whim of some capricious policy wonk. You do not seem to hold that sort of view of law.

You also seem to espouse legal positivism in your claims about the Constitution itself. You seem to think that rights are granted by the state, and if the state does not grant them we cannot claim them. That is at the heart of the matter, a position of legal positivism.

I would venture that most of FT's readership is more aligned with Natural Law principles of jurisprudence. It seems, based on much of what I have read in this thread, that your readers are not legal positivists, but would rather hold that the Constitution finds its moral validity in that it is in accordance with natural law. The natural law tests the Constitution, and the Constitution cannot morally (jurisprudentially) trump the natural law.

Perhaps this explains why you are so obviously not connecting with your readership and not able to deal with their concerns.

Why *First Things* would have someone with legal positivistic tendencies (not that you are deliberately, I am not sure you've ever studied jurisprudence or asked yourself the question about the rightful limits and the role of government) as their web editor is a mystery to me.

It seems odd. I would have expected someone well grounded in classical Western thought, not reflexive tenets of some crude schools of Enlightenment social theory about the power of the State to do what it will by fiat.

"I have not shown haughty disdain."

That's highly debatable, and I'm debating it.

"My claim was that too many people do not feel an obligation to defend their country or their liberties."

You've been given the power of reading souls? And who are these people who "do not feel an obligation to defend...?" Are they the people who object to the screenings, or the people who put up with them? That's what folks here seem to be debating.

"(I'm not asking what the people on Flight 93 did but what people (including readers here) are willing to do.) "

Let me get this straight. The heroic acts performed on board Flight 93 are no indication of what could be expected from future passengers? They were a mere anomaly? You ask me for an example of heroism, and then when I give it you brush it aside, ruling it irrelevant on grounds which you do not explain?

"If you've never read First Things then how do you know that my position is not supported by Fr. Neuhaus?"

Since he is dead, how do you know that it IS? Furthermore, I said nothing about his "position" versus your "position." No, I have not read Father Neuhaus, but I have seen him on EWTN, ABC, etc. Above all, he was a gentleman, and THAT is what the two of you do NOT hold in common, as evidenced by the contemptuous and contemptible insinuations which you continually drop--and as evidenced by the way you seek to duck and dodge whenever a reader calls you on them--dashing from one innuendo to another without ever staying long enough to defend one.

I've met plenty of people who try to win an argument simply by being a moving target--taking constant refuge in "I never said any such thing"--attempting to get the best of the opponent by just confusing him as to what they ARE saying. I'm not fooled by that anymore, and judging by this thread, neither are the other people contributing comments.

"Jefferson was a Colonel in the Virginia militia"

Now we have entered a realm beyond parody. The closest Thomas Jefferson came to sniffing powder was the quick exit out the back door of Monticello while Banastre Tarlton was coming in the front door.

"You're time writing this comment might have been better spend by pointing out these "well-reasoned comments.""

Sorry, I assumed you read what people submitted before responding to it. My bad.

"So, if one Palestinian group attacked a U.S. airliner, the U.S. would retaliate against Syria, Iraq, and Iran, among others.")"

Had we done that back in the 1980s, we would not be in the stew we are today. Iran is today arming, training and financially supporting guerrillas operating in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Iranian secret intelligence agents have been been captured in Iraq, where they were helping insurgents target American forces. Consequences to Iran for what is unmistakably an act of war? Zilch. I was right in 1982, and I'm still right.

"If that is the claim, then why do so many people propose profiling as an alternative? Profiling is more expensive, takes more time, is more inconvenient, and is more intrusive than the current system. "

Profiling may or may not be more expensive than the current system, since we have no way of judging the costs of something which is evolving every day. All that equipment is not cheap, and every new generation of screening equipment will be more expensive still. All that expensive equipment has to be operated by trained personnel; training takes time and costs money. All that expensive machinery needs maintenance, usually performed by an OEM under a long term contract worth several times the value of the original procurement contract.

For all of which we get. . . perhaps a slight and transient improvement in our ability to detect weapons and explosives. As I said, in one of my many well-reasoned comments (I do study this stuff for a living, you know), terrorists will either find a new way of smuggling explosives and weapons, or they will change their tactics in other ways.

On the other hand, a corps of intelligent, well-trained profilers can evolve as quickly, if not more quickly, than the enemy. Right now, their Observation-Orientation-Decision-Action (OODA) Loop is faster than ours (not the least because we have to sit around waiting for the next generation of technology), whereas if our profilers and counter-terrorism people are smarter than the bad guys, we will be able to turn inside their OODA Loop and regain the initiative against them.

"The El Al system cost $78 per traveler. Just to add profiling would cost the government/travelers an **additional** $62.4 billion dollars a year. "

There are economies of scale and implementation of an American system based on Israeli principles need not be that expensive. For instance, the vast majority of air passengers will receive only a cursory interrogation, because they do not meet the profile and have no other anomalies. That allows more time and effort to be focused on those who do meet the profile, and those who do present anomalies (like the nice Irish lass flying to meet her future in-laws without her finance; what machine would have caught that?).

"Also, as an NPR report noted earlier this year, for passenger flying through a U.S. airport to receive on average 10 minutes of questioning from one guard would require 3 million TSA agents."

First off, citing NPR is not likely to help your case. Second, the underlying assumption is every passenger receives that ten minute grilling. Or that every airport will have the same degree of security, which is of course, both unnecessary and foolish--see, again, Frederick the Great: "He who defends everything defends nothing".

"And do we really want the government to do a background check on each traveler (as El Al does) and to ask us where we work, how often we go to church, how many of our friends are foreigners, etc. El Al asks such questions as "When did you convert to Judaism?" Is that really the type of question Americans want a government agent to ask them?"

Just finished my SBI, so they already know all that and more. As someone else noted, just sharing the ICE databases with TSA would go a long way to reducing shots in the dark. So would a pre-screening procedure under which, for a fee, frequent travelers, or those who find the whole security thing stupid, can get a clearance. I would, in an instant (again, just having completed my SBI, I know that drill very well).

What Mr. Carter does not want to concede is the randomness of body scans and enhanced patdowns makes them worse than profiling, in that they simply do not focus on those most likely to be threats. There is also significant evidence that TSA's process for selecting those to be scanned and frisked is based on non-operational criteria. As I noted (in another well-considered comment), since cross-sex searches are not permitted, when more women screeners are on duty, more women than men get frisked. TSA also seems to pick on government employees and military personnel because they are less likely to complain, and pick on women, the elderly and children disproportionately because they are less likely to cold-cock them or blow up prematurely.

It is my well-considered opinion that Mr. Carter continues to defend the indefensible, and would be well-advised to follow the example of R. Emmett Tyrrell of the American Spectator, who came out on Monday with an article in praise of TSA, then took some time to learn the facts about TSA and its methods, and on Friday came out with an essay entitled "I Was Wrong" (catchy title, Joe--I'm sure Bob won't mind if you borrow it for your retraction).

I kind of wondered about Bob's original article, since he has a real germ phobia (Howard Hughes scale) and made me sit across the room from him when we first met (back when he published my first article in (blush!) 1979 (getting old, I'm afraid). I just couldn't see Tyrrell allowing some guy to stick his hand down Bob's pants, especially if that hand had just been down the pants of twenty or thirty other guys who could have been, well, anywhere.

"Likewise, to travel by commercial air, a person has to freely agree to abide by certain restrictions and regulations. Currently, that is an agreement to be searched if you refuse to go through a full-body scanner or if you set off the metal detectors."

The so-called "agreement" is something the government has imposed unilaterally and unconstitutionally -- by their own admission.

"I'm not advocating expanding the number of people who serve in uniform. But if Americans were half as concerned with defending their liberties as they were with personal advancement, the military would be harder to get into than the Ivy League schools. "

Some parts of it are. But, on the whole, the military takes a better class of people than the Ivy League.

Mark @11.24.2010 | 6:30pm ,

With regard to your assertion that "if you want to stop knives from ending up on planes, metal detectors are perfectly adequate," I would respectfully demur. Perhaps you are not familiar with the resin and fiber "CIA letter opener" which was specifically designed for special ops, and is generally not detectable by a metal detector, although it would probably show up on an X-ray/fluroscope. A weapon very much more effetive than a box cutter, and they are very sharp. They are also very inexpensive.

An example here: http://www.defensedevices.com/covert-non-metallic-plastic-letter-opener.html.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

"@Curt says: ***(1) I don't especially care what veterans think about civil rights issues. Am I supposed to?***

"And I don't particularly care to hear what you think, so I'm not sure why you continue to comment. All you ever seem to do is whine about how FT is not like it was back in some mythical golden age.

"***Once again FT has strayed from Fr. Neuhaus' original vision of a journal to discuss the intersection of faith and civic life. ***

"As I've pointed out to you before, you don't seem to understand Fr. Neuhaus' mission."

______________________________

Wow, Mr. Carter. Quite uncivil!

Actually, Curt explained Fr. Neuhaus' mission quite well. Here is the actual quote from the FT mission statement: "whose purpose is to advance a religiously informed public philosophy for the ordering of society."

And where do you get off basically telling someone to stop commenting? Is FT and its online site busting out with subscribers and other readers to such a degree that trying to turn people away is good policy?

A blogger who resorts to inciting emotions from himself and the readers and then to hectoring those readers when their view of the matter at hand is decidedly different is a blogger who arguably ought to reevaluate (or be reevaluted by his superiors?). FT should remain close to its roots of considering the crossroads of religion and the public square rather than veering too far into the consideration of issues purely from a secular and personal viewpoint. The TSA issue is a hot one, granted, but it should be dealt with more responsibly and less exploitatively.

After reading about every comment, I can only hope that, given the increasing sarcasm and condescension on all sides, this comment thread gets closed down soon. Yes, I know; I can just not read it. Still, one wants to think that the contributors to and readers of a favorite publication will get tired of spitting venom at each other and just go their separate ways on a given issue.

Well, if you want to go for concealable improvised weapons, there are always ball point pens, knitting needles, chop sticks, rolled up magazines, paper clips, tooth brushes--you name it. Guards in our prisons have seen it all. Convicts are subject to strip and cavity searches, yet prisoners still manage to smuggle in drugs, weapons, cell phones, whatever. Now, if the comprehensive and intrusive searches used in our prisons are inadequate, how much more so the random and capricious full body scans and searches employed by TSA?

In any case, as most of us have noted, the "let's hijack an airliner" horse has left the stable. With standard operating procedures that keep the cabin door locked at all times, and alert passengers who have been conditioned from 9/11 to react forcefully to perceived terrorist threats, it ain't likely to happen. And, insofar as the body cavity bomb seems to be the wave of the future, who here is ready to bend over and cough? Mr. Carter, after you.

@Kirstin ***However, again you assume that everyone is a suspect, when in fact, nearly everyone is not. Security needs to focus on those who are the most likely suspects.***

As we’ve already noted in this comment thread, one of the latest threats caught by El Al was a pregnant Irish woman who was not even aware that she was carrying a bomb. Since she was not a “likely suspect” how would she have been identified under the program you propose?

@Steven J Schloeder ***eliding, cherry picking, misrepresenting, begging the question, offering false dichotomies, erecting strawmen, etc . from your interlocutor's arguments.***

When you make such claims you take on the obligation of pointing out where I have made such fallacies. Please point out where I have done the things you claim.

***We as human beings have the natural right to act as long as that act is morally good or morally neutral, and that no one is foreseeably or can be reasonably harmed by our actions.***

No, actually we don’t. I’ll give you an example of what I mean. Imagine a man is walking down the highway and sees you driving in the direction he is going. Since he would prefer to ride in you car and since such an act is morally neutral, you’re claim is that he has a “natural right” to ride with you. Do you really believe that? Do hitchhikers have a natural right to ride with you whenever they like?

***This is why air travel is indeed an essential liberty in our current state of developed civilization.***

No it is not. You are perverting the common usage of the term “essential liberty.” Commercial air travel is not, and has never been, considered an essential liberty.

***The government has the right to order and regulate this activity, but not at the cost of other natural rights, such as the right to bodily integrity -- the extension of which is the right to not be molested and manhandled by the government (without probable cause/due process) or deliberately exposed to anything that has any known risk of harm (no matter how small-- the moral principle here is *primum non nocere") by the government. ***



The government does not have a right to search you for any reason that it chooses. But when it makes it a requirement to be voluntarily agree to be searched in order to take a particular form of commercial travel, then it has not violated due process.

***. Simply being on the streets in a car is not reasonable cause, just like simply wanting to board an airplane is not reasonable cause.***

Let me repeat what has previously been said: [T]he courts have traditionally permitted the use of such screens for airport security as reasonable (and therefore constitutional) searches in ways that give a lot of deference to the national security interest in avoiding airplane hijackings and terrorist attacks. See, e.g., United States v. Hartwell ‚436 F.3d 174 (3d Cir. 2006) (Alito, J.). The basic idea is that screening to stop a terrorist attack is an “administrative search” that is constitutional so long as it is reasonable — and that it is reasonable so long as it it is not overly invasive given the threat that it is designed to deter and stop.



*** it appears to me that you seem to be a legal positivist -- evinced by your statement "we have a positive right, such as freedom of speech. "***



No, I am not a legal positivist. However, in that comment I meant to say “negative right”, not “positive right.” The term “positive right” refers to rights that permit or oblige action, whereas negative rights permit or oblige inaction.

***Perhaps this explains why you are so obviously not connecting with your readership and not able to deal with their concerns. ***

I am unaware of a single commenter making their case based on natural law. The reason is that there is no natural right to air travel.

***Why *First Things* would have someone with legal positivistic tendencies (not that you are deliberately, I am not sure you've ever studied jurisprudence or asked yourself the question about the rightful limits and the role of government) as their web editor is a mystery to me. ***

Not only has nothing I have written in this thread implied that I am a legal positivist, nothing I have written at FT would imply such.

@Larry ***You've been given the power of reading souls? And who are these people who "do not feel an obligation to defend...?" Are they the people who object to the screenings, or the people who put up with them? That's what folks here seem to be debating.***

The answers are “No, I haven’t”, “I don’t know”, “I don’t know”, and “No, that’s not really what we’re debating.”

I didn’t say that anyone in particular was unwilling to defend liberty. However, I did ask what people were willing to do to protect such liberties. While objecting when perceived liberties are taken away is legitimate, it is not what I was referring to. I was talking about proactive actions that make people safer.

***Let me get this straight. The heroic acts performed on board Flight 93 are no indication of what could be expected from future passengers? ***

No, they are not. You can’t extrapolate the future actions of one group based on the actions of a previous group—especially when there is no direct connection between the two groups.

If a man acts bravely in combat and wins the Medal of Honor, that does not mean that his neighbor will even join the military, much less distinguish himself in action. There is simply no correlation.

***They were a mere anomaly? You ask me for an example of heroism, and then when I give it you brush it aside, ruling it irrelevant on grounds which you do not explain?***

Yes, I suspect they were an anomaly. That is why it was, as you noted, a “heroic act.”

Also, I really wish people would stop trying to score debating points and really think about what they are saying. You are claiming that we don’t need additional security measures because passengers now understand that they must stop a hijacker, even if it means they must die in the process or allow everyone one board to be killed.

You are essentially saying that personal searches for weapons are illicit, everyone is tacitly agreeing to a potential suicide mission every time they board a plane.

***Since he is dead, how do you know that it IS?***

I don’t. But you were the one that implied that you knew he would disagree with me.







***Above all, he was a gentleman, and THAT is what the two of you do NOT hold in common, as evidenced by the contemptuous and contemptible insinuations which you continually drop—***

I’m not sure what you are referring to. Can you point out an example of these “contemptuous and contemptible insinuations”?

***and as evidenced by the way you seek to duck and dodge whenever a reader calls you on them—***

What have I ducked and dodged?

***dashing from one innuendo to another without ever staying long enough to defend one.***

This comment thread currently has 168 comments. I have responded with 14 comments. I’ve tried my best to defend my points, but I’d be grateful if you could point out the ones that I have missed.

***I've met plenty of people who try to win an argument simply by being a moving target--taking constant refuge in "I never said any such thing"--attempting to get the best of the opponent by just confusing him as to what they ARE saying. I'm not fooled by that anymore, and judging by this thread, neither are the other people contributing comments.***

When I say, “I never said any such thing” it is because I believe (based on rereading my comments) that I never said any such thing. It is not like a private conversation where the wording is in doubt. If I said something then it should be easy enough to quote my own words back to me.

@Stuart Koehl ***Now we have entered a realm beyond parody. The closest Thomas Jefferson came to sniffing powder was the quick exit out the back door of Monticello while Banastre Tarlton was coming in the front door.***

TB said that Jefferson never served in the military. I pointed out that Jefferson did indeed serve in the milita. Why is it “beyond parody” to state a historical fact?

***There are economies of scale and implementation of an American system based on Israeli principles need not be that expensive.***

How are economies of scale relevant when we are talking about highly trained, well-paid human agents? If it were machinery, then the more you buy the cheaper you could get them. But human labor doesn’t come cheaper just because you purchase it in bulk.



***For instance, the vast majority of air passengers will receive only a cursory interrogation, because they do not meet the profile and have no other anomalies. ***

How will we know if they “meet the profile” if the system is not race/ethnic based?

***That allows more time and effort to be focused on those who do meet the profile, and those who do present anomalies (like the nice Irish lass flying to meet her future in-laws without her finance; what machine would have caught that?).***

How would the American system have caught the Irish woman? El Al screened her more thoroughly because she was not Jewish. But in America, she would have looked like a large majority of American women that supposedly wouldn’t be given much extra scrutiny.

And a better bomb sniffing machine could have caught the explosives she carried in her luggage.

***It is my well-considered opinion that Mr. Carter continues to defend the indefensible, and would be well-advised to follow the example of R. Emmett Tyrrell of the American Spectator, who came out on Monday with an article in praise of TSA, then took some time to learn the facts about TSA and its methods, and on Friday came out with an essay entitled "I Was Wrong" (catchy title, Joe--I'm sure Bob won't mind if you borrow it for your retraction).***

Tyrrell said, “Show me the facts, and I shall make up my mind.” Yet in his article he prevents not facts that should have made him change his opinion. He notes that there are other ways that someone could sneak a bomb on the plane. That was never in doubt. The only obvious conclusiong that can be drawn from the article is that Tyrrell caved because he was taking too much heat from his readers.

*** I just couldn't see Tyrrell allowing some guy to stick his hand down Bob's pants, especially if that hand had just been down the pants of twenty or thirty other guys who could have been, well, anywhere.***

No TSA agent sticks their hands down anyone’s pants. Is it that you don’t actually know what the new screening process entails are or you just making stuff up for effect?

@Kirstin ***Wow, Mr. Carter. Quite uncivil! ***

Yes, I know, I’m supposed to sit back and repeatedly allow commenters to insult me and my magazine.

***And where do you get off basically telling someone to stop commenting? Is FT and its online site busting out with subscribers and other readers to such a degree that trying to turn people away is good policy?***

As the web editor, I have complete discretion about who can and cannot comment on this site. However, as you may have noticed, I don’t censor comments just because they are rude, insulting, and add nothing to the conversation. I allow a lot of latitude about what can be said on this site.

***A blogger who resorts to inciting emotions from himself and the readers and then to hectoring those readers when their view of the matter at hand is decidedly different is a blogger who arguably ought to reevaluate (or be reevaluted by his superiors?)***

It’s high time we dial down the hyperbole. Hectoring means bullying or tormenting. Who have I done that too?

It appears to me that many commenters simply do not like the fact that I expect them to back up their claims with actual facts. This is a public forum for the discussion of issues. My job as moderator is to try to steer the discussion in a manner that produces an interesting and enlightening conversation.

If someone is unable or unwilling to defend then claims, it is no mark on their integrity not to comment. But it is unbecoming when they fuss when it is pointed out (sometimes repeatedly) that they are not actual defending their argument but merely repeating the same assertions over and over again.

***FT should remain close to its roots of considering the crossroads of religion and the public square rather than veering too far into the consideration of issues purely from a secular and personal viewpoint. ***

My arguments are rooted in a Biblical worldview, specifically that our obligations to love our neighbor can trump our rights to privacy. That is neither a secular nor a personal viewpoint.

Also, I must say that I’m highly disappointed by the suggestion made by both you and Larry that my superiors should muzzle me because you don’t like what I have written.

The point is that Jefferson, Lincoln, Adams, etc., had no serious acquaintance with the military in their backgrounds prior to their respective presidencies. Their contributions were legal and philosophical (of course Lincoln was a great war president, but that's different than being in uniform). Lincoln himself mocked his "military service," and the most famous story of that service regards his inability to figure out how to march his men through a narrow passage (his solution was to disband the formation for ten minutes and call it back to order on the other side). By any reasonable historical standard, they were not military men.

I suspect that Mr. Carter is again being disingenuous in his optimistic assessment of Lincoln, Jefferson, etc.'s military qualifications. If a modern American with similar qualifications (IE, drilled for two or three weeks in the state guard once, and nothing since; or was given an honorary/political appointment as a militia officer but was never near an army camp and never wore a uniform) opposed him on this question here on this board, I doubt very much that such a person's "military experience" would meet the Carter standard of "defending liberty."

The point -- and the irritation -- is that Mr. Carter has declared that those who have not served in uniform have proven themselves unwilling to defend liberty. This is demonstrably false as liberty requires defenders of all stripes -- martial, economic, intellectual, legal, etc. Mr. Carter exacerbates this allegation by further asserting that those strongly disapproving of the TSA procedures are likewise unwilling -- even though it is clear from the readers' comments that their primary motivation is the defense of liberty as they understand it. These assertions are received by the readers here -- most of whom I suspect are devoted to liberty -- as a personal insult. Which they are. Mr. Carter's tone, and his refusal to grant even for a moment that this could possibly be an intellectual disagreement between the advocates of two well-intentioned, moral and thoughtful parties, seals the insult. It is this last -- the continually ratcheting failure to engage his readers in a respectful way -- that has aggravated this conversation.

I do have to say, though, that I have no desire that Mr. Carter be in any way silenced, reprimanded, etc. The style and substance of his argument discredit him; he needs no help. I hope he is given plenty more rope with which to hang himself.

@TB ***The point is that Jefferson, Lincoln, Adams, etc., had no serious acquaintance with the military in their backgrounds prior to their respective presidencies.***

As I just showed, all those men were acquainted with the military prior to their presidencies. I can understand how you would prefer to not to admit your error but to spend two paragraphs trying to defend it is a bit much.

***By any reasonable historical standard, they were not military men.***

So by your "reasonable historical standard" anyone who served in a milita was not a "military man"?

***I suspect that Mr. Carter is again being disingenuous in his optimistic assessment of Lincoln, Jefferson, etc.'s military qualifications.***

Anyone who wonders why I express my frustration with certain commenters should consider this comment by TB. He claimed that certain American leaders were never in the military. I showed that all of them were. Now he says I am being "disingenuous in [my] optimistic assessment" of their military qualifications. I made not claim about their military qualifications. None whatsoever.

***The point -- and the irritation -- is that Mr. Carter has declared that those who have not served in uniform have proven themselves unwilling to defend liberty.***

I said no such thing.

***Mr. Carter exacerbates this allegation by further asserting that those strongly disapproving of the TSA procedures are likewise unwilling***

I said no such thing.

***These assertions are received by the readers here -- most of whom I suspect are devoted to liberty -- as a personal insult.***

If people are so devoted to liberty that they are willing to make sacrifices to protect it for themselves and others, then they have no reason to be personally insulted. It they claim to be devoted to liberty and yet are unwilling to make any sacrifices to to protect it for themselves and others, then they should rightfully feel ashamed.

What is shocking is that so many people are shocked by my remark. From the time of the Founding Fathers till at least World War II, it would have been completely uncontroversial.

In case I have not made myself clear, let me say it again. There are more ways to serve defend liberty than by serving in the military, the police, TSA, etc. There are common practices (such as screening at airports) that most people find unobjectionable because they realize it is done for the greater good of protecting their fellow citizens.

I am **not** saying that **all** people who object to these pat-downs are unwilling to defend liberty. The fact that some people who are unwilling to defend liberty object to the pat-down does not mean that everyone who objects t the pat-downs is unwilling to defend liberty. (This is basic logic.)

If anyone is willing to defend liberty (in a specific, rather than hypothetical or abstract way) and yet opposes the pat-downs then **they have no reason to be insulted because I am not referring to them.**

***Which they are. Mr. Carter's tone, and his refusal to grant even for a moment that this could possibly be an intellectual disagreement between the advocates of two well-intentioned, moral and thoughtful parties, seals the insult.***

Good grief. How many ways can you misrepresent my position?

I have never for a moment refused to grant that there could be an intellectual disagreement between the advocates of two well-intentioned, moral and thoughtful parties on this issue. The issue at hand is not whether thoughtful people can disagree (they certainly can) but whether they have presented well-reasoned arguments for their position.

On this thread people have advocated for profiling. I have pointed out how the way it is done by El Al is neither applicable in the U.S. nor is is anything like what Americans assume it is done. On this thread people have asserted that the pat-downs are clearly unconstitutional. I have given reasons to show that, based on current case law, that is unlikely to be true. On this thread, some people (okay, one person) has said that what we really need to do is attack sovereign nations that may be harboring terrorist. For obvious reasons, I ignored that peculiar idea.

***It is this last -- the continually ratcheting failure to engage his readers in a respectful way -- that has aggravated this conversation.***

Who have I been disrespectful too? Are you referring to my responses to the people who (like you) have openly insulted me?

"Yes, I know, I’m supposed to sit back and repeatedly allow commenters to insult me and my magazine."

If you read your original post with objectivity, you will see why any thoughts of insults began with your statements there. And when people explained to you why your viewpoint was a misreading of the intentions of many, you refused to understand or even acknowledge those legitimate arguments. What's to be done?

"It appears to me that many commenters simply do not like the fact that I expect them to back up their claims with actual facts."

There are facts aplenty in this long thread. Unfortunately, you do cherry-pick from them and ignore anything you apparently don't want to deal with.

"My arguments are rooted in a Biblical worldview, specifically that our obligations to love our neighbor can trump our rights to privacy. "

Okay, you explicate that more clearly now. As for the actual worldview, loving one's neighbor is less about treating everyone (innocent and guilty) alike (as though they were criminals) than about recognizing people's essential (God given) human dignity, in my opinion. We are not a bunch of cogs the State's machine. We are each of us independent, unique people who mostly good and generous and who are ready to make sacrifices when necessary. However, this is a situation in which something other than what is being instituted should be adopted for the sake of more effective security and for the sake of preserving our Constitution. So, I agree about loving our neighbor, but completely disagree about how that ought to be put into practice in this case. I'm not going to go into more detail here because I and everyone else who believes the same has already made that case with facts and logic to great extent above.

Oh, and I have not asked anyone to muzzle you. I do think though that it is time to refocus and rededicate to the original reason FT was launched. I've been thinking that for a while now; this particular article has simply spurred to to express it. I would encourage all the editors and regular contributors to sit down and do just that.

Pretty much everything has already been said here, but I'll add this. As a young, Christian theology grad student currently interning at a 2-point parish in rural North Dakota who has made a specific point in life to not allow my breasts and genitals to be handled by anyone other than a doctor prior to my wedding night, I would much prefer to answer "invasive" questions about my profession, religion, country of origin, travel plans, etc... That is "first date" fare. Somebody's hands inside my underwear is most certainly not.

(Frankly, I consider the inevitable "How come you're not married yet?" from relatives during the holidays MUCH more "invasive" than a sophisticated check of my passport history.)

Yes, of course convenience must be - to a certain degree - sacrificed in the name of safety. No one really complains about simple magnetometers in the airport, or to attend a presidential campaign rally, or to enter a federal courthouse. But there comes a point where a certain level of modesty and dignity is owed all citizens, even "potential terrorists," such as myself - a cancer-surviving 20-something amputee who wears a prosthesis and has been suffering through these indignities for years - and we have to draw a line in the sand and say, "And from here on, we will simply have to take our chances."

The question, I suppose, is "where is the line in the sand"?

I'm still not sure why, Mr. Carter, you think that the argument has to be about profiling. (I realize that much of the discussion in the comments has been about that, to be sure, and so of course you have responded. That's not what I mean.) You seem to think that if the TSA scraps the procedures at issue, they are bound by necessity to replace them with something (i.e., profiling, which you object to). But many of the comments, from Stuart Koehl and others, have also argued to the effect that it would be better simply to scrap them and use the money on things we already do that are more important (i.e., intelligence). I realize you've replied fourteen times, but I don't see you addressing that point at all. You came close: you argued at one point that we should willingly undergo any Constitutional and non-immoral screening procedure as long as it produced some marginal improvement in security, but you didn't respond to the obvious counterexamples I pointed out. By your argument, we should acquiesce to any security procedure, however invasive, so long as it 1) is Constitutional, 2) is not inherently immoral, and 3) produces some marginal security benefit to our fellow citizens. Try this: security cameras blanketing every public space in America, maximum 35 mph speed limit on all roads, body scanners and TSA-style patdowns to enter any stadium, arena, or theater, wearing face masks in crowded public places during flu season, etc etc etc. Your position, as stated, admits no reasonable limits. I don't see that you have dealt with that fundamental problem at all.

I should really stop reading this and go to bed. But I just came across the statement that all people who have not served in the military should be quiet about this issue.

I apologize that as the daughter of a career Army officer, I had the appallingly unpatriotic nerve to develop bone cancer at the age of ten and then to have my leg subsequently amputated, such that I am physically disqualified from serving in the military. I might also mention that there has been speculation that said cancer was "caused" by exposure to Chernobyl uh...excesses which I suffered because of my father's career.

I'll be quiet now, as befits a person who spent her life being dragged around from post to post, even into foreign countries; who has maintained no close friendships that were begun prior to high school; who quite literally has no hometown; who lived through the Gulf War with my elementary-school playmates, knowing that at any moment it could be any of our fathers on the dark TV screen with the green flashes of light; who never spent more than two years in the same school; who oh, never mind.

In fact, I probably shouldn't be allowed to vote, either. Because God knows I haven't sacrificed anything for this country.

This is me, being quiet now.

@Kirstin ***And when people explained to you why your viewpoint was a misreading of the intentions of many, you refused to understand or even acknowledge those legitimate arguments. What's to be done?***

Go back and read my original comments and you'll see that I both acknowledged and addressed the legitimate arguments that were made.

***There are facts aplenty in this long thread. Unfortunately, you do cherry-pick from them and ignore anything you apparently don't want to deal with***

If you'll point out the ones that you believe I have ignored, I'll address them.

***I do think though that it is time to refocus and rededicate to the original reason FT was launched. I've been thinking that for a while now; this particular article has simply spurred to to express it. I would encourage all the editors and regular contributors to sit down and do just that.***

Here is the original article that Fr. Neuhaus wrote that laid out the mission and purpose of FT: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/03/putting-first-things-first

If there are ways in which we are failing to abide by that original mission statement then we certainly want to know. I'm sure I speak with everyone on the staff when I say that we are open to correction.


@Katie ***Somebody's hands inside my underwear is most certainly not.***

The TSA agents do not put their hands inside your underwear.

***But I just came across the statement that all people who have not served in the military should be quiet about this issue.***

I'm not sure how you came across such a statement since I said no such thing.

In fact, I wrote "In case I have not made myself clear, let me say it again. There are more ways to serve defend liberty than by serving in the military, the police, TSA, etc. There are common practices (such as screening at airports) that most people find unobjectionable because they realize it is done for the greater good of protecting their fellow citizens.

Many of the other commenters have twisted my words—not to mention my meaning—about my position. In my view, the families of military members make sacrifices that often exceed those of veterans. Since you are one who has made sacrifices for the liberty of others, I was clearly not referring to you. 


@Joe Z ***I'm still not sure why, Mr. Carter, you think that the argument has to be about profiling.***

Because in my article I was responding to Charles Krauthammer and others who claim that profiling is a better alternative.

***You seem to think that if the TSA scraps the procedures at issue, they are bound by necessity to replace them with something (i.e., profiling, which you object to).***

No, not really. I think the TSA needs to do more than they have been doing, which is one of the reasons I support the new procedures. But I don't think it is required that they replace them with something else.

***But many of the comments, from Stuart Koehl and others, have also argued to the effect that it would be better simply to scrap them and use the money on things we already do that are more important (i.e., intelligence).***

The reason I have not addressed that point is because no one has really made a complete argument for that position. Some people have made the claim that the money should be spent elsewhere. But they have not explained why using that money on other methods would be more effective than the current procedures.

Also, that is a debate about the most effective way to spend money on security. We're still trying to hash out what actually works, so that type of discussion would be premature.

***You came close: you argued at one point that we should willingly undergo any Constitutional and non-immoral screening procedure as long as it produced some marginal improvement in security, but you didn't respond to the obvious counterexamples I pointed out.***

One of the main reasons I am a conservative (as opposed to a liberal or libertarian) is because I prefer to focus on the concrete rather than the abstract.
My argument was clearly not meant to be taken as creating an abstract rule that could be applied everywhere. It was limited to this discussion about airport security.

I assume that you follow a similar method of reasoning. For example, we currently allow metal detectors to be used in airports. I suspect you support the use of such machines within that narrow context. Doing so, of course, does not mean that you would necessarily support putting metal detector in other locations.

Now there may be some anarcho-libertarians that believe that by your conceding to allow metal detectors in airports that you are putting us on a slippery-slope to, as you said, "implementation of and submission to a law regulating automobile speed to a maximum of 15 mph, with cameras blanketing the nation in order to insure compliance."

You would likely scoff at such an absurd conclusion because it is an bizarre extrapolation. You would be right.

Slippery slope arguments are admittedly reasonable in some contexts. But we conservatives have a tendency to overuse them which makes it harder for people to take them seriously when they are truly applicable.

Slippery slopes are, after all, just metaphors. And as law professor Eugene Volkh has said:

{While metaphors can be helpful, they often start by enriching our vision and end by clouding it. Metaphor, after all, is a term for a figure of speech (“All the world’s a stage”) that’s literally false. The trick is to look beyond the metaphor to the actual mechanism by which the “slippage” or “desensitization” happens. By identifying this concrete mechanism (for instance, people’s often-rational desire not to devote their time to considering seemingly small policy changes) we can better evaluate the actual likelihood of slippage—the probability that by supporting an appealing decision now, we will make a dangerous one later.]

If you want to argue that pat-downs lead to draconian automobile speed regulation, then you have to explain the mechanism by which that can happen. I don't see how the two are connected.

1) "When you make such claims you take on the obligation of pointing out where I have made such fallacies. Please point out where I have done the things you claim."

I already gave you one obvious example of a fallacy where you asserted that which was being disputed. An example of a false dichotomy is where you present: "Tell me how many Americans per year you are willing to let die so that you don't have some grubby TSA agent pat you down. "; another is where you assert "If you find it an affront to your personal dignity, then do not travel by commercial air. It really is that simple." The "either/or" argument as if those were the only two options is what makes it a fallacy.

An example of a strawman is where you stated "the loudest complaints against the changes appear to be coming from the usual privacy fetishists: the privileged elite who believes their most inviolable right is the right not to be personally inconvenienced." You even reiterated that in writing "The problem is that Americans want to have everything they want in exactly the way they want it."

These are simply cartoonish views of those with whom you disagree. They are fallacies, and you commit them regularly in this thread.

If you need more examples, I will be happy to send you my rate sheet and a letter of agreement for me to vet your writings for fallacious arguments. ;-)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) "No, actually we don’t. I’ll give you an example of what I mean. Imagine a man is walking down the highway and sees you driving in the direction he is going. Since he would prefer to ride in you car and since such an act is morally neutral, you’re claim is that he has a “natural right” to ride with you. Do you really believe that? Do hitchhikers have a natural right to ride with you whenever they like?"

Yes, he does have a natural right to ride with me. And I have a natural right to allow him to or refuse him a ride. But regardless of how we negotiate that transaction, you miss the whole point of governmental interference. I have not claimed that the government can mandate that he can ride with me or I must convey him. Is that not obvious to you?

So step back and think about what really constitutes a morally good or morally neutral act (ACT X), and what the government legitimately has to say about making people do ACT X or preventing them from doing ACT X.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3) "No it is not. You are perverting the common usage of the term “essential liberty.” Commercial air travel is not, and has never been, considered an essential liberty"

Rather than playing the "no it isn't game", why don't you try to construct an actual argument?

The proposition is that it is in so far as the commercial air travel industry is under the common good (which it seems to be -- argue against that) and/or is a public good (which it seems to be -- argue against that) or a standard good of the society (such as "public conveniences") (which it seems to be -- argue against that) that all citizens have rights to enjoy access to the benefits of society (which it seems to be -- argue against that). Therefore they have the right to enjoy unmolested access to air travel under their basic freedoms.

You would have to argue that air travel is not part of the goods of the society to which we are all entitled to participate, and/or the government has the right to ban citizens from participation in that activity. On what grounds would you do that, which would not also apply to attending a public school, checking out books from a public library, playing in a public park, walking on a public sidewalk, using the postal system, shopping in a mall, being provided with police and fire protection, have access to medical care, driving a car on public streets, going to a movie theater, allowed to conduct business, etc?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4) "The government does not have a right to search you for any reason that it chooses. But when it makes it a requirement to be voluntarily agree to be searched in order to take a particular form of commercial travel, then it has not violated due process. "

Once again you make a legal positivist argument -- that if the government propagates a law it therefore requires compliance, even if the law is immoral or against the good of the individual. And again you do violence to the word "voluntary" (as others have pointed out) -- one cannot compel voluntary behavior. You also don't understand "due process" which is to say "the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law." In this sense we are speaking of procedural due process which requires that the person is entitled to adequate notice, a hearing, and a neutral judge. To make people give up rights in order to do X contradicts the very nature of due process.

And here is a massive contradiction on your part: you claim that "The government does not have a right to search you for any reason that it chooses." But then you argue that it can simply choose to make it a requirement -- so it can in fact do it for any reason that it chooses. That is more evidence of your legal positivism : if the government requires it we must comply if we want to do what is objectively morally good or morally neutral.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

5)"The basic idea is that screening to stop a terrorist attack is an “administrative search” that is constitutional so long as it is reasonable — and that it is reasonable so long as it it is not overly invasive given the threat that it is designed to deter and stop."

Congratulations. You just articulated the basic argument that most your interlocutors have been making. Most of us seem to think that grabbing folks genitals and /or subjecting them to potentially harmful radiation and /or taking pictures of them "virtually" naked is not reasonable because it is overly invasive and violates common standards of decency.

Now that you have actually typed that sentence, perhaps you can reflect on it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6) "No, I am not a legal positivist. However, in that comment I meant to say “negative right”, not “positive right.” The term “positive right” refers to rights that permit or oblige action, whereas negative rights permit or oblige inaction."

You have in no manner addressed the central argument for which you seem to be a legal positivist -- namely that you seem to think that the government assigns or grant rights by law, and that they can therefore take them away by law. Rather you quibble over what is an essential liberty (as if not being manhandled or photographed "virtually" naked as violations of privacy, and not being subjected to potentially harmful radiation are not essential liberties), without ever thinking about the nature of liberty and the legitimate role of the government in curtailing ANY liberties to act in ways that are morally good or morally neutral.

Until you can address the question of the government's legitimate authority to make it onerous for people to act in morally good or morally neutral ways, you have not even begun to answer your interlocutors.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7) "I am unaware of a single commenter making their case based on natural law.

Of course you are unaware, which is why I thought it helpful to point out why you do not seem to be not connecting with your readership. There is a whole body of natural law jurisprudence which underlies the classical liberal tradition (modern "conservatism") regarding the rights of man vs the limits of government. I may be wrong in this estimation, but I would venture that the general sympathies of your readership lie with natural law theory as opposed to legal positivism.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8) "The reason is that there is no natural right to air travel."

You have to actually argue that there is no natural right to participate in the goods of the society, or that air travel is not a good of the society. Otherwise, this is simply another fallacy of asserting that which is being disputed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9) "Not only has nothing I have written in this thread implied that I am a legal positivist, nothing I have written at FT would imply such. "

You may not be one, or you might be a "material" positivist without being a "formal" positivist, or you might just not understand the terms of discussion, or you might not have thought this matter through from a natural law POV, but you certainly give your reader a lot of reason to infer that you have a tendency to legal positivism (as I pointed out again above).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10) "TB said that Jefferson never served in the military. I pointed out that Jefferson did indeed serve in the milita. Why is it “beyond parody” to state a historical fact? "

In all fairness, Mr Carter, you are perfectly right in answering those points about military service.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11) "No TSA agent sticks their hands down anyone’s pants. Is it that you don’t actually know what the new screening process entails are or you just making stuff up for effect?"

"The TSA agents do not put their hands inside your underwear. "

But it appears that they do, Mr Carter -- I have the testimony of friends who I completely trust that they have had their groins and genital handled. Maybe they are lying, but I doubt it. There is a lot of counter evidence to your claim that this is not happening.

I guess readers of the entire thread can judge the merits of the historical issue for themselves. If you'd rather play gotcha than follow the logic of the argument I was making, that's fine. But I mentioned Lincoln's militia service in my original post on the topic, so it's not as though I was surprised that he served a month in Illinois in his youth. My obvious point was that his military service was de minimis and that his background lacked the sort of experience that would give him authority to speak, by your standards.

As an aside, you've (rather lamely, in my opinion, but your readers can judge) contested two or three of the examples I offered, not "all." Being a civilian military overseer (Adams) is clearly not the same thing as being in the military; Martin Luther King was not military, Henry Ford was not military. I agree with Mr. Koehl that your effort to pretend that Jefferson had military "experience" because he held an honorary commission is pretty pathetic. The man was a philosopher, writer, and diplomat, not a soldier. He did not "sacrifice" his safety for liberty via military participation in the manner you laud. The revolutionary era saw every man with meaningful military experience referred to by his military rank as a matter of respect ("General Washington," etc.); I don't recall ever seeing Jefferson referred to by his contemporaries as "Colonel Jefferson."

More important than the minutae, the general point I was making holds firm; I invoked the masses of civilians ("doctors, nurses and mothers"…"captains and workers of industry" )who have not served militarily, and named a few individuals as illustrations. The argument doesn't depend on the particulars; there have obviously been great defenders of liberty who were not soldiers. Your readers can fill in the blanks themselves if they don't like my chosen examples. The point is that you're wrong to express irritation and condescension towards your fellow citizens for their strong opinions on matters affecting our liberties on the basis of their (to you) low participation rates in the military. You're wrong because all Americans are entitled to consider matters affecting liberty and to develop strong opinions about them, regardless of the means by which they contribute to the Republic. No American ought ever to express that a fellow citizen ought not to have an opinion because of that person's lack of accomplishments or "sacrifice". It's pretty simple, really.

The essence of the insult you've offered your readers is the confident insistence that those who oppose these TSA measures are doing so because they are "unwilling to sacrifice" a little personal convenience to protect liberty. This is wrong because that is decidedly not the calculation that your readers are making -- and your error is that you repeatedly refuse to accept your readers' own assessments of the reasons for their views and instead insist on ascribing to them a motive that is false. As I said in my first post, I personally have no difficulty being frisked/scanned/etc. It would not bother me were I in a foreign country, and I don't care if a man doing his job feels my crotch. I am bothered by the TSA procedures ONLY because of my concern for the dignity and fundamental liberty of American citizens generally, and the enervating effect that I suspect long-term acceptance of such intrusions will have on Americans' conception of themselves as independent and sovereign citizens rather than peons of the state. Many of your readers clearly feel likewise. But you go on insisting on the motive that you wish to ascribe to them: to paraphrase, that they oppose TSA because they are careless about their fellow citizens' safety and jealous of their own convenience. Then you layer a second insult on the first by stating that because opposition to the TSA protocols can only derive from this "selfishness," those who have not proven their "selflessness" by military service ought to be ashamed to speak to this issue at all.

It's a little like listening to a peacenik who bases his every statement about international affairs on the presumption that soldiers and Marines are dullards motivated by testosterone, brutishness and a taste for blood. He insists that their actual, stated motives for their views on the war cannot be taken seriously, and because soldiers and Marines -- notwithstanding their protestations -- are "really" bloodthirsty killers with views attributable to that bloodthirst, they ought really to have nothing to say about protecting the peace. They are disqualified by the views and feelings that the peacenik imputes to them, and he will not for a moment grant that there is any validity in the reasons they actually give for their position.

If you were grappling honestly with your readers' views, I suspect this would be a very different conversation. The TSA procedures essentially involve a trade off of personal liberty for security. The legitimate argument here turns on two questions -- 1) How much liberty are we giving up, and 2) How much security are we gaining? Opponents feel we're giving up a lot and getting little in return. You feel differently. If you were willing to treat your interlocutors with a little respect by acknowledging and engaging their actual analysis of the issue rather than dismissing that analysis by attributing it to carelessness, heartlessness, selfishness and personal convenience, there would be no insult. It's not that hard to just say "I weigh these two factors differently than you, and here's why" rather than asserting that your readers' weighing of the factors is indicative of a moral failure.

I'm sure you disagree with my assessment of your argumentation. But the response you've received here cannot be attributed simply to the fact that you support the TSA procedures; it comes from the manner of your argumentation. I don't come here much, though I used to read the print magazine monthly. But I'm wiling to bet that most debates here, as in most places, are usually a lot more even than this one. You'd think that would be especially true for contentious issues; passionate advocates on both sides should be inclined to join the argument. Here we see you against essentially your entire readership. I'll bet that has a lot to do with what I've just outlined. You might consider that.

As to whether Mr. Carter actually suggested what many -- many -- of his readers believe he said, the relevant post is at 11/24/2010 at 8:52 PM. The core five paragraphs:

"Since the end of the draft, approximately 9 percent of the population has served in the military. That means that 10% of Americans have contributed to securing the rights for the other 90%.

This should be a shame and an outrage. Yet most Americans are shocked and offended if you imply that they might have some obligation—whether in the past, present, or future—to protecting their fellow citizens and securing their liberties. They didn’t serve in the military and they don’t want their children to serve.

Additionally, they complain that the TSA is staffed by, as Stuart said, “brain dead mouthbreathers” and yet if you were to suggest that they should encourage their children to work for the TSA for a couple of years as a public service, they’d look at you like you lost your mind. The idea that their children would put off their careers to serve in such a menial role is preposterous. For most people, paying taxes is all that should be expected of them.

Perhaps I’m the one with the skewed perspective. I admit that my time spent with the men and woman of the military has made me impatient with most Americans. It frustrates me that they willingly put their bodily integrity at risk to protect people who think it is the height of indignity to be patted down in search for weapons and bomb components.

It makes my blood boil when people who have never lifted a finger to defend the safety of others claim that we should expect airline passengers to stop hijackers so that they don’t have to suffer the indignity of a pat-down."

To me, this establishes two things:

1) Mr. Carter insists, as I said, that those opposing the TSA procedures are fundamentally doing so for personal and selfish reasons -- so that they can personally avoid the "indignity of a patdown."

2) This pompous desire to avoid said "indignity" is made worse by the failure of these Americans to serve militarily (in the context of these paragraphs, it's pretty clear "lift a finger" means military service.)

Decide for yourself.

"No TSA agent sticks their hands down anyone’s pants. Is it that you don’t actually know what the new screening process entails are or you just making stuff up for effect?"

Quite right, Joe. Who are we going to believe? You, or our lying eyes?

Since nothing is impossible for the man who won't listen to reason, here endeth the lesson.

Mr. Carter, I appreciate your reply, but nonetheless, comments such as "veterans are tired of listening to whiny veterans complain about taking off their shoes" and "those who have never lifted a finger in the name of safety expect others to help in the event of a hijacked plane" suggest that you believe non-veterans' contributions to this debate are, by their very nature, less deserving of consideration than those of veterans. I know no other veteran who has suggested such a thing in the course of this public debate.

And finally, yes, TSA agents do stick their hands inside your underwear. Perhaps it is not SOP (one hopes), but my college roommate reported just such an event last week. Having been raped a few years ago, this airport experience was, for her, more than just "a little inconvenience."

"This should be a shame and an outrage. "

I am curious. Why? Contrary to what most people believe, conscription was not a normal part of American life, and military service was not seen as something noble or even honorable. During periods of conscription, it was seen as an onerous burden to be fulfilled if it could not be avoided. During periods without conscription, it was seen as work fit only for those who could not make an honest living (and such was the case right down to World War II). Americans inherited the British aversion to standing armies and conscription, and their attitude towards soldiers was--until the 1990s--not too different from that described by Kipling in "Tommy".

As to how many Americans have served in the military since the end of the draft, one wonders about the relevance of this. We do not need a particularly large army, but we do need a highly trained and professional one. Just what would we do if we reinstated conscription? To make a soldier valuable at all, we would have to make the term of service four or five years. But if we did that, we would be calling an even smaller percentage of the available pool of 18 year old males (I assume Mr. Carter would not want women to be drafted), meaning the burden of service would fall mainly on those too poor or too stupid to get a deferment.

"They didn’t serve in the military and they don’t want their children to serve."

Again, this is the historically normative attitude of the American people since the foundation. Today's attitude is the aberration--a professional military held in high public esteem. Moreover, far from being recruited from society's dregs (Sorry, President Obama!), today's military reflects fairly well the demography of the country as a whole, with the richest quintile slightly over-represented, and the poorest quintile slightly under-represented.

While there is no economic imbalance among military recruits, there is a strong regional disparity, with the South and Southwest heavily over-represented, and the North-east and Pacific Coast strongly under-represented. I think it interesting that the bulk of the people most offended by TSA's approach to airport security seem to come from those parts of the country where people are more likely to volunteer for military service, while the "Shut your eyes and thing of England" crowd seem to come from those places were military service is avoided (but government meddling in our lives is otherwise endorsed).

"I don't recall ever seeing Jefferson referred to by his contemporaries as "Colonel Jefferson.""

Well, it would have been ludicrous and subjected the touchy Jefferson to howls of ridicule, particularly when you consider that his political contemporaries such as Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr and even James Monroe (he's the officer crouching by Washington's knee in Emanuel Gottlieb Leutze's famous painting of "Washington Crossing the Rhine") had been real colonels and had real combat experience.

"Additionally, they complain that the TSA is staffed by, as Stuart said, “brain dead mouthbreathers” and yet if you were to suggest that they should encourage their children to work for the TSA for a couple of years as a public service, they’d look at you like you lost your mind."

Here you err in thinking that anyone can be a screener, provided they have adequate intelligence (whatever that might mean). In fact, it requires a special type of intelligence and aptitude, bolstered by YEARS of training. In other words, this is a PROFESSION, not something that can be filled by a bunch of bored, uninterested and minimally trained (and dare I say brain dead?) college kids punching a national service ticket in order to, e.g., get out of paying their college loans or to qualify for some sort of educational subsidy once they are done. Just as you can't build a modern army out of conscripts, so you can't build a modern airport security apparatus using conscripts, either.

And, TB, I've spent the last thirty years of my life working with and around military personnel. I've got close friends who have put in multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. I've lost friends in Iraq and Afghanistan (and on 9/11, too!), and I have friends who have lost children in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do not try to pull rank on me or impugn my motives when it is patently obvious your entire argument is not based on facts or experience, but on rank emotionalism.

"And finally, yes, TSA agents do stick their hands inside your underwear."

Yes, of course. In fact, it's on video, in multiple instances. But as I said, who are you going to believe? Joe Carter, or your lying eyes?

The problem, of course, is this type of search will not really find any weapons or explosives. Next step--putting fingers INSIDE travelers and wiggling them around, much as is done at America's finer correctional institutions.

One thing that hasn't been discssed yet - while our gloriously competent TSA screeners are targeting women wearing skirts and groping men's genitals (I think ya'll should wear kilts in the manner God intended to make their searches a little easier), what's happenng to your belongings on the x-ray conveyor

The first time I was pulled aside for a pat down, I had to stand there yelling for the shift supervisor - while they had me caged up in the little plexiglass holding both, my purse and everything else were sitting on the conveyor for anyone with quick hands to either take or place something into. The second time, I was onto their game and kicked up a fuss from the start. In consequence of this I was labelled a "female target" and I also believe I came near to being arrested. But I did succeed in getting my belongings secured before anyone else was let through the metal detector.

Now, if I had voluntarily left my belongings unattended, they'd be confiscated and I'd be questioned. But since the government is demanding I do that, it's ok.

TB and Mr. Schloeder have offered such brilliant and specific refutations of Mr. Carter's posts that there is almost nothing further to be said. I simply wish to add that what I see happening is that one side is offering calm reflection and reasoning while the other side answers by hurling accusations that the opponents are unreasonable. Mr. Carter repeatedly demands specifics even after he has gotten exactly what he'd asked for in truckloads.

Mr. Carter himself impugned the motives of those who object to the current TSA screenings, then when called out, he has tried to take refuge in "I never said..." and "you misunderstand...you distort...show me where I did (etc)..."

After saying that too many Americans do not want to serve the cause of liberty, he will not be pinned down on just what type of work he considers to be in service of liberty, and even whom, exactly, he is accusing. It is left to us to infer from his numerous insinuations that his idea of service is that we should either be involved in the military or at least should support authoritarian state measures designed to protect, not liberty, but security. These are two different concepts.

He is regularly insolent, and then accuses his polite readers of insulting him. He does not seem to notice that since he introduced the military service issue and began taking reader opposition, apparently no one has written to support him--which is a bit unusual and should suggest to him that his arguments and tactics are indefensible. That he has treated his readers offensively appears to be the unanimous verdict of these responses. That should say something.

A couple of people have taken issue with my demand that he be separated from First Things--so let me elaborate. Yes, I stand by that--not because of his support for the TSA screenings, but for his lack of regard for charity and honesty in this dialogue. As a perfect example of how NOT to engage the world in Christian dialogue, he has no place at a publication which claims to have a Christian mission. I think he would fit in wonderfully at The New York Times.

As for First Things, if it wishes to credibly claim that it DOES have a Christian mission, it cannot tolerate the tactics used here by its writer.

Thank you for your attention.

Well , Mr.Carter as well as those who have commented deserve gratitude for bringing up a topic that seems to be troubling at many levels for many , as it should ..

It only adds to those troublesome concerns to read how our Holy Father himself had expressed reservations about the use of the scanners ..

Could it be a possibilty that the manufactures , those who are to make profits from its forced use on the masses have much at stake ...could this be just one reason why those who refuse its use are then subjected to harassement, in the form of demeaning treatments and searches .. this , in spite of the possibilty that those who refuses its use , on accout of the sense of it undermining one's dignity would be the last people who would try to attack the dignity and integrity of another !

Are there political ideology people who are pushing these things with even a sinister motive - in a 'new world order' agenda that is desperately searching for 'vaccines' to curtail reproductive gifts etc:, do we have to be concerned what these machines and their makers are capable of ...

In a land that chose a President with obvious Moslem background, in the midst of the legitimate concerns about terrorism , the circumstances of his coming to power - there are issues that can make one feel at unease as to who is up to what ..

Hoping that those with the responsibilty to govern with wisdom would read up , pay attention and caution and try to dedo the machines to be of use as scanners, if possible, in some poor countries !

P.S - meant to say that the machines could be redone as medical scanning devices , in case it implied by omission that they can be used for its present intent !

Mr. Koehl, you wrote:

"And, TB, I've spent the last thirty years of my life working with and around military personnel. I've got close friends who have put in multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. I've lost friends in Iraq and Afghanistan (and on 9/11, too!), and I have friends who have lost children in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do not try to pull rank on me or impugn my motives when it is patently obvious your entire argument is not based on facts or experience, but on rank emotionalism."

I'm not sure if this comment was intended to be addressed to me. You may be responding to my quoting of Mr. Carter. Please check and let me know. I definitely do not believe in argument by rank-pulling, and I think I've been extremely clear on that point throughout this discussion. I think the substantive points that you've made are excellent and your military connections, while admirable, aren't necessary to support those points.

Joe, this is really interesting. You complained that "most" commenters were suggesting profiling, and asked for a pointer to someone who wasn't. I stepped up and volunteered, and you replied...

"***The claim is that the increase in security from these extra procedures is very modest, while the increase in expense (time *and* money), inconvenience, and yes, indignity is great.***

If that is the claim, then why do so many people propose profiling as an alternative? Profiling is more expensive, takes more time, is more inconvenient, and is more intrusive than the current system."

Seriously? Seriously, you asked for someone who wasn't proposing profiling, I explicitly point out that I wasn't, and you... respond by talking about profiling? That's, uh... wow.

Now, what I *actually* proposed was...

"***Take the money earmarked for body scanners and spend it upgrading many dozen cockpit doors instead, or funding the salaries of many air marshals.***"

And you responded:

"Plenty of money has already been spent on cockpit doors, and yet despite throwing money at the problem they continue to have flaws. And we'd need an air marshal on every flight to provide a comprehensive program. That is an expensive way to handle the problem."

Wait. Cockpit doors have had flaws, so we shouldn't spend money on them... but body scanners have flaws too - as has been pointed out here - and we *should* spend money on them?

Reinforcing a door costs substantially less than a scanner - plus the people necessary to run it, plus their training. Even *if * cockpit doors will continue to have flaws - like *everything else made by humans* - that's not an argument against them.

According to what I can find, the set of new scanners cost $300 million dollars to buy, plus $340 million to staff and operate. Let's assume an air marshal makes $100K per year, and it costs $300 million to further upgrade the cockpit doors. That's three *thousand* additional air marshals and improved cockpit security for the cost of the scanners.

Joe Carter: "If you want to argue that pat-downs lead to draconian automobile speed regulation, then you have to explain the mechanism by which that can happen. I don't see how the two are connected. "

I was responding, explicitly, to your formalization of your argument in an earlier comment, where you cast it as an argument in five steps. There it seemed clear that you were trying to articulate your position as a valid conclusion from true premises - I am not suggesting that we are on the cusp of all those occurrences (though some of them, like body scanners for trains and stadiums, don't sound far off at all) - my point was that your argument, as formulated in that comment, would also justify those things, and was thus insufficient to justify the procedures in question. If that wasn't your intent, then I misread, but I'm not sure why you were formalizing your argument then.

And I disagree strongly that nobody in the comments has made the case that we'd be better off just scrapping the procedures and spending the dough on intelligence. Stuart Koehl has made that argument at great length above; he has also said things about profiling, but that doesn't change the fact.

As for the larger point, I realize that you were responding to Krauthammer and others. From your comments it is clearer to me now that what you were really trying to get at was this: profiling is not the no-brainer solution some people are saying it is, and the idea that this is unconstitutional is wrong-headed. (You were also angry about people who easily cry about rights and liberties when what they're really talking about is convenience.) Is that about right?

Maybe it's not possible to shed more light than heat after 191 comments, but your original post was generally framed, generalized about people objecting to the TSA's new procedures, was entitled "A Defense of the TSA," and finished with the pithy and polemical line, "Go Greyhound." The opening gambit characterized the new TSA procedures as something that any reasonable person should agree with. People are going to respond to that. Later on you speculated, again in very general terms, that what was causing the outrage was a character flaw, a willingness to complain about inconveniences along with an unwillingness to sacrifice for one's fellow citizens. (TB has, in a recent comment, quoted the paragraphs that many have had a particular problem with.) If this many readers took you to be making so general an accusation and so unqualified a defense, the simplest explanation is that your post wasn't qualified enough. In light of the way the post was written, it is really weird (not to be technical about it) that your responses have largely been protests that people are missing how specific your point really is. Then, when you frame your argument as an argument, you exempt yourself from dealing with counterexamples.

Something is going wrong here - I don't ascribe it to a lack of charity, but something has gone wrong. In another comment thread you told me that you understand your role as a writer to be that of a polemicist, and I think that is a perfectly fine thing to be, if it is done right. What you wrote in this case was most certainly a polemic - nowhere did you stop to say anything like, "There may be compelling arguments against these procedures, but Krauthammer is wrong on two fronts: first, he is wrong about profiling, etc etc." Nowhere did you address the more careful arguers who take the opposing position, like Schneier or Goldberg. You didn't avoid implicating, pretty clearly, the people complaining about these procedures with a character failing.

I think it would be ok if, on being pressed, you qualified your statements and chalked up the losses to the genre of polemic. (It would be even better if your polemic were more carefully put together.) But what is just wrong, to my mind, is responding to criticisms by faulting your readers for missing the specificity of your point. If you want to write a specific argument against some kinds of critiques of the TSA, then do so. That is not what you did here. Polemics can't be defended as if they are articles in the journal Analysis. If what you wanted to do was rile people up, then you succeeded. If what you wanted to do was to convey some points (profiling is a problematic alternative, Constitutionality is a red herring here) and not others (anybody who disagrees with the appropriateness of these procedures is wrong, and the ones who are making noise about it now are whiners who should shut up until they make some real, preferably military, sacrifices for their country), then you failed. The audience has spoken, and spoken pretty well, in many cases.

I'd like to see Mr. Carter address how a Christian can justify sacrificing modesty, particularly for Christian women or the men who are responsible for their care, simply so as to be able to fly. Or should Christians be required to eschew air travel? Or is Mr. Carter an increasingly common sort of evangelical who no longer has concerns about things like modesty and chaste living?

"I'm not sure if this comment was intended to be addressed to me. You may be responding to my quoting of Mr. Carter."

TB--

If I misquoted you, I do apologize. It is difficult at times to tell when someone is quoting and when when someone is expressing his own opinion, and I may have conflated Mr. Carter's opinions with your own. As a suggestion to First Things, they may wish to update their software to include HTML code allowing indented quotes, hyperlinks, etc.

Mr. Koehl -- no problem, can happen easily. My 11/28/10 at 2:45 AM post has one brief paragraph of my own writing, followed by five paragraphs of quotation from Mr. Carter, followed by a two-point numbered summary of what I believe to be Mr. Carter's argument in those five paragraphs. I probably could have found a way to make that clearer.

@David Gray

If we are to ask Muslim women to sacrifice their modesty in order to fly, we must ask Christian, Jewish, Hindu, atheist, agnostic women, Hooters waitresses, etc. to sacrifice their modesty.

If your personal beliefs preclude you from engaging in activities other people participate in, that's your problem, not everyone else's.

If you want to live under a Catholic/Christian Taliban, pool your resources, buy some land and go for it.

By all means live a life of integrity -- I applaud that -- as long as you're willing to accept the consequences and not cry and whine like a baby when you can't eat your cake and have it, too.

Silliness, Nora.

My complaint against full-body scanners is that the additional security they offer in comparison to current measures is so slight as to not be worth the additional loss of privacy. It is true that safety necessitates vigilance and sometimes that includes giving up certain rights, but full-body scanners do not provide much more than our already-standard procedures, which we've seen to be sorely lacking.

From what I've seen, read, and heard about the scanners, I've come to three understandings:

1) for those who are concerned about privacy, metal plates are offered to obscure genitalia from the image. However, this means that there is a spot on the body which is NOT being read, and if one were looking to bypass the system, they would most certainly hide something there.

2) the scanners mostly pick up inconsistencies on the image, not provide clear view of the objects. In such cases, it seems we would be asked to step out and remove the object, or be submitted to a pat-down. Considering that we are already required to remove metal and shoes and jackets, the only (potentially harmful) things I can imagine this might otherwise pick up would be containers of gel or water.

3) there is plenty of room for error. The study I saw showed that some objects are easy to miss on the scans, which means that they are not fool-proof. The additional inconvenience and loss of privacy is not proportionately matched by the gain we get from these machines.

Yes, it's complete silliness for someone to play the Christian modesty card when they'd have zero problem with a Muslim woman being scanned and frisked and even asked to remove her burqua.

Joe Carter said:

"The reasons the searches are "voluntary" is that you have to freely agree to be searched. "

If the American College of Obstetricians required every certified obstetrician to perform at least one abortion every year, would Joe Carter also consider it reasonable? After all, according to his logic no one would be forced to perform abortions, only those people who intended to be obstetricians. It would therefore be only a voluntary agreement between the obsterician-to-be and the Am. Coll. of Obstetricians.

BTW, I do recall an item on First Things several years ago decrying some news from Sweden, where obstetricians were legally required to (at least) assure that any patient requiring an abortion would be immediately brought into contact with someone willing to perform it.

PS: I am also apalled that Joe Carter seems to think that genital groping is only demeaning if the groper intends it to be sexual. I am sure gropers everywhere will be comforted to know that they can grope anyone without being accused of harasment as long as they claim that no sexual intent was meant.

"Yes, it's complete silliness for someone to play the Christian modesty card when they'd have zero problem with a Muslim woman being scanned and frisked and even asked to remove her burqua."

It most certainly is silly, since, thanks to our extreme sensitivity to Muslim opinion, it is highly unlikely that a woman in a burka would ever be subjected to frisking. I travel quite a bit, and have never even seen an obviously Muslim woman pulled over for questioning. After all, we wouldn't want CAIR to get all incensed, would we?

As for removing the burka, a damned good idea, if you ask me. A more perfect garment for the concealment of not only weapons but personal identity has never been devised. Not to mention, it is a sign of the subordination of women within Muslim culture. No stronger opponents to the burka exist than educated Muslim women who have no desire to return to the seventh century.

There are women who embrace the burqua, however.

Also, you go down that road with burquas, and where does that leave you when it comes to habited nuns? Neither group of women probably rack up a whole lotta frequent flier miles, but they do, on occasion, fly. And how about women who wear saris?

Either everyone is subject to the same rules and regs, or no one is. If a woman's religious beliefs -- which should be her greatest priority, if what I'm always told about such things is true -- preclude her from certain activities, that's her problem, not mine.

Anyway, all this fuss amounted to nothing this busy travel season, so it's pretty much a moot point now. And a running bra and a pair of compression shorts under sweats and a tee shirt would solve a lot of the modesty issues even when it comes to pat-downs.

"There are women who embrace the burqua, however. "

When in Rome, do as the Romans do. This is not Saudi Arabia, and this is not the seventh century. Those who wish to live in a liberal Western society and reap the benefits therefrom have an obligation to respect the conventions and mores of that society. There are Muslim women who embrace female genital mutilation. Should we accommodate them, as well? That there is a significant overlap between those who embrace the Burka and those who embrace clitorectomy is probably not a coincidence.

In any case, Europe sets the trend for these things, and America follows. We're just embracing the multi-culti death dance now, while Europe, having seen where it leads, is now turning its back on it and demanding assimilation from its previously indigestible Muslim minority. Just in time, too.

Burkas and saris, by the way, are just apples and oranges.

Except that's not the issue at hand...the only reason I mentioned that there are women who embrace (or claim to embrace) the burqua is because that many people, including those from the same culture, reject it for what it represents is not an argument against or for TSA security measures. Yes, beat the living daylights out of any guy who forces his wife to wear such a thing, but that's not the issue here.

When it comes to airport security, we apply the rules to everyone regardless of ethnicity, sex, socioeconomic status, religious persuasion, whatever. So if a burka is deemed troublesome and requires extra scrutiny, then so does any long, flowing, tent-like garment, whether it's a burqua or some grandma's muu-muu. That the burqua is a symbol of an oppressive and brutal belief system should be beside the point. It deserves extra scrutiny because it's easy to hide stuff under, is all, as is a nun's habit, or a sari. Or those ridiculously baggy jeans and long T-shirts the gansta-wannabe crowd wears, if we're to apply the rationale to menswear. Or, actually, traditional Muslim menswear, although I have never seen anyone wearing those clothes on a commercial American or European flight.

BTW, the only time I felt really, really bad for anyone at a security checkpoint was when some yahoo TSA agent somewhere in the south -- probably Atlanta, but maybe South Carolina -- asked an elderly Indian woman to unwind part of her sari. Her sweet little husband was horrified and visibly upset, but they complied with great dignity in spite of the obvious bias on the part of the TSA agent. I wish there had been a scanner there so she didn't have to be pulled aside in public by this doofus. But I still wouldn't expect her to be precluded from the same security measures I or a nun or a woman in a burqua would be subject to.

"When it comes to airport security, we apply the rules to everyone regardless of ethnicity, sex, socioeconomic status, religious persuasion, whatever."

And that's the problem, because not everybody presents an equal threat. "The race is not to the swift, or the contest to the strong--but that's the way to bet". If you attempt to treat everybody equally, you have only two choices: to subject everybody to the same level of scrutiny, in which case the entire system will collapse under its own weight; or to pick out people at random for intensified screening, in which case valuable resources are wasted on people who pose minimal risk for the sake of appearing "fair".

But, of course, war is not "fair"--it's about as unfair as anything can be, and our adversaries understand quite well that by raising the specter of racial bigotry they can invoke the kind of guilt reflex that causes us to waste hundreds of billions of dollars and impose all sorts of indignities on people for very marginal improvements in security. It harms us, and in no way inconveniences them--because, as I mentioned, all of our technologically-based responses have (and must be) totally reactive: we are constantly trying to stop the LAST terrorist threat, and by the time we do, the terrorists have moved on.

Terrorists are now secreting bombs inside body cavities, where they cannot be detected either by backscatter X-ray scanners (which, as noted, are not even very good at detecting certain types of explosives hidden under clothing), or by an exterior genital grope.

So, let me ask you: are you willing to submit to a random cavity search (the only way to have any chance of finding internally hidden explosive devices (IHEDs, an acronym I just invented, and on which I now claim copyright)? Or would you prefer that TSA make use of some fairly commonsense means of sorting potential terrorists out from the background of innocuous travelers?

Unless you are the rare woman who looks forward to a pelvic examination, I suggest that the answer to this one is a total no brainer.

Well,we shouldn't apply gambling odds to human life. We can make an educated guess as to who's the most likely to be a troublemaker, but in a country this big and this diverse, it's not going to have the same success rate as Israel has. I am actually of the mind that too many people are flying as it is -- I am old enough to recall a more refined flight culture, but that's another story. Still, if flying weren't just a slightly more expensive version of the subway, airplanes would be harder to access for those who would cause harm. But, yeah, information based deep background profiling is the most valuable tool any entity has when it comes to thwarting terrorists. Backed up by scans/pat-downs just in case.

Suggesting that cavity searches are next is a scare tactic meant to whip up hysteria over this whole situation. They're not going to happen, period. The airlines would put their collective foot down at that one, passengers would balk en masse and any proposal to try such a thing would die in its tracks.

There is no perfect screening method, but the informational-based deep background check with a "clear" card for frequent travelers, seems to be the most effective. Scanning/pat-downs as a back up are fine with me. I don't find them intrusive, and I think, as this past holiday weekend proved, the people making the biggest noise are the ones who weren't even flying anyway. In this country, unlike Israel, we will eventually have a problem with some lone nutter who has nothing to do with Al Quaeda or even Islam, so we need the additional backup methods.

Oh -- as far as our attempts to stop the "last" terrorist effort, that's a non-starter, as I said before. The reason taking down a flight is so appealling to terrorists is because, um, they're terrorists -- they deal in terror, and it's one of the average passenger's biggest fears. Airline terrorism is here to stay. Somebody is always working on the next bomb or hijacking.

The only thing we cannot scan out now is, as you say, a human bomb. And it will happen. That's the thing about freedom -- it's risky business. You have to know this in advance, weigh the odds, make peace with the fact you're going to die sooner or later anyway, and take your chances. That sounds really fatalistic, but I don't mean it that way. You can live in fear (in which case the terrorists have won, whether you blow up instantly or live a stunted, stilted, fear-filled long life), or you can live your life regardless. Your choice -- like the man says -- you can either die while you're living or live while you're dead.

Also, I have seriously reactionary and bacwards views on borders, who we should and should not let into the country, and all that, so it's not like I'm all about open borders and letting all these troublemakers into the country in the first place. If I ran the world they'd all have been blown up and sent to their maker for Him to sort out long ago. On a more practical level, I'd at least close borders to Muslims and let the rest of the world call us all the names they'd like. At some point you just have to tell people that they, as a group, cause way too many problems and until they clean up their own house, they're no longer welcome here. The US really has to start freeing itself from the good opinions of others.

So, shut the borders, flip 'em all the bird, and go about the business of living. That's really the only way to win when it comes to fighing terrorists.

>If we are to ask Muslim women to sacrifice their modesty in order to fly, we must ask Christian, Jewish, Hindu, atheist, agnostic women, Hooters waitresses, etc. to sacrifice their modesty.

Not pertinent to the question I'm asking Mr. Carter (which he's not addressed). Additionally it is a stupid point but all the same it wouldn't be relevant if it was filled with insight. Mr. Carter is supposed to be an evangelical. There was a time when women's modesty was understood to be something of importance. He seems utterly indifferent to this. Admittedly a lot people now using the name evangelical are perfectly comfortable with the latest stripper-ware but I'm not assuming he's one of those. So he should address it or admit he's an "evangelical" who is indifferent to such matters and he can be understood in the context he's chosen.

Define modesty -- because it sounds to be like you're more about a big, fake, showy, pretend modesty as suits your purpose rather than genuine modesty.

I mean, if you're all about the li'l lady's modesty and all, wouldn't you be more about keeping her home, or wrapping her in a walking shroud, like the fundie Muslims do? Or in ugly, shapeless jumpers and -let'splay-dress-up Victorian costumes those creepy Ladies Against Feminism affect?

We live in a world where women travel as frequently as men. Women don't get a pass at the security checkpoint just because they have vaginas and breasts. Sorry -- if it's that much of a problem, chain your wifey to the stove and leave her at home.

I've done the pat down and the scanner -- if someone out there, in this day and age of all the free internet porn you can possibly consume, is so freakin' hard up they want to save a crappy nekkid image of me in order to get off, that's his deal, not mine. Doesn't affect my modesty at all. I just don't go there mentally, but that's because I don't have a dirty mind, unlike all those usual shrews and harpies and whiny, effete men who are always seeing dirt everywhere they go.

It's not a stupid point at all -- you wanna live and work with the rest of us here in the 21st century, then the possibility of going through the scanner or getting a pat-down from someone of the same sex is something you have to deal with. If it's too much for the delicate flowers out there, they can stay home.

The world does not owe you the perfect scenario for you to live your supposed beliefs without them costing you anything. If it's too haaaard, wahwahwah, for you to contemplate your wimmens going through teh scanner, then keep her home. Clearly she's unable to make these choices for herself in your world, so I have zero sympathy for her.

>I mean, if you're all about the li'l lady's modesty and all, wouldn't you be more about keeping her home, or wrapping her in a walking shroud, like the fundie Muslims do? Or in ugly, shapeless jumpers and -let'splay-dress-up Victorian costumes those creepy Ladies Against Feminism affect?

I think you have defined yourself effectively.

Nora's responses have shown her to be seriously un-serious.

That's because I'm not as insecure as y'all... ;~)

Rob Long at National Review injects a note of reality:

"Be honest now: When you stumble through the security line, personal belongings every which way, clutching your shoes and belt to your chest the way a ravished maiden clutches her dress in a Victorian melodrama, do you feel safer? On the other hand, as you board the plane and struggle down the aisle with your (face it: too large) carry-on and bump along the rows, check out your stolid, irritated, loaded-for-bear fellow passengers. Now imagine that the guy in 22C starts to light his underpants, or mix his tiny shampoo into his tiny conditioner. Do you have any doubt that the lady in 22D, or the fat guy in 22A, or the wiry old guy in 22B, or the hipster plugged in to the iPod in 22H will hesitate, for a moment, to kick his ass?

"We all know who will save us from the terrorists, and it isn’t the guys in the uniforms. It’s one another. Every furious, cranky, stressed-out passenger on the plane. We’re one another’s first — and last — line of defense. And I don’t know about you, but that honestly makes me feel safer. A lot safer."

John C. Wohlstatter has an interesting article at National Review Online, entitled "Eight Air Security Myths" (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/254351/eight-air-security-myths-john-c-wohlstetter?page=1). Joe Carter's article is based on all eight. Among some of Wohlstetter's more salient points:


1. The fact that there have been no attacks since 9/11 vindicates TSA.

The logical fallacy here is known as post hoc, ergo propter hoc (“after this, therefore on account of this”). There is zero reason to credit TSA’s new tactics with anything save annoying unlucky travelers. We can see this by looking at incidents in which governments actually foiled terror plots. None of them involved TSA-style measures.

Remember the 2006 ten-jetliner plot hatched at Heathrow? The 1995 “Bojinka” terror plot hatched by 1993 World Trade Center–bombing mastermind Ramzi Youssef? The 2006 plot was broken up by the Brits, and the Filipinos broke up the second. Neither used TSA’s methods. The Brits used shoe-leather investigating, phone taps, and intelligence from a Pakistani interrogation of one detainee. And in 1995, Youssef was interrogated by the Philippine government, and confessed.
No other government uses the TSA scanners. No one — including the Israelis — uses intimate patdowns.

2. The Christmas Bomber’s near-success requires scans.

The underwear bomber who nearly ruined America’s 2009 Christmas flying season used PETN, an explosive that is difficult to detect even with the new scanning machines. (So are twelve-inch razor blades, apparently.) What was easily detectable by the U.S. was the bomber’s dad’s visiting our embassy in Lagos, Nigeria, and warning us about his son — several times. Israeli experts tell us that most of their security is applied before a traveler reaches the airport. Kids and lawmakers likely do not get stuck on Israeli no-fly lists.

3. Each method terrorists use requires a targeted response.

Because terrorists have hidden stuff in their underwear, we must pat them down. So when terrorists use body cavities to conceal things, as surely they will, will TSA attempt to search everyone’s orifices? Not a chance: Americans will not stand for anything like this. Which is why the excuses for today’s patdown molestations are so infuriating and phony.

4. The U.S.’s air-travel volume precludes TSA from using Israel’s methods.

Yes, America is bigger than Israel, is home to 45 times as many people, and has 75 times as many flights travel through its airspace every day. But America also has vastly more resources to draw upon; its per capita flight total is less than twice Israel’s.

5. Passengers know what the new procedures entail, and if they don’t want to fly, they can just as easily take some other form of transportation.

Actually, TSA chief John Pistole admitted he withheld pat-down details, thinking it would fool terrorists. He fooled us instead.

Also, care to travel coast to coast for Thanksgiving weekend by train? By bus? By car? How about Christmas weekend in Paris, going by boat?

6. If we fail to search children and grandmothers, terrorists will simply enlist them in their plots.

Yes, terrorists would gleefully wire kids and grannies. And one Palestinian granny already has blown herself up, albeit not while flying or attempting to fly. But finding willing suicide-bomber elders in civilized countries is well-nigh impossible. Were it easy, it would have been done already. As for kids, instead of mauling them, our security screeners should scrutinize the elders traveling with them, as Israel does. Remember that every time a security screener searches a zero-risk flier, that screener is not available to search someone who may pose a real risk.

7. Terrorists don’t fit any profile; watching out for Muslims does not work, because Johnny and Jane Jihad might look like us.

True, we cannot identify all Muslims by looking at them. But another form of profiling does work: behavioral profiling. Johnny and Jane are no better at eluding expert scrutiny than are Abdul and Aisha

8. Americans won’t tolerate profiling.

Does anyone really believe that Americans, if given a choice between intimate patdowns and Israel-style interviews, would choose being groped?

Oy, well...

As for your quote, it's interesting how the author assumes all the passengers surrounding the terrorist are male. Although, in this day and age of the glorification of the wuss, I'd probably feel safer with some good 'ol bridge-and-tunnel chicas like me next to the guy. However, the reali problem with that view is that it isn't a legitimate policy for anything. It all assumes far too much -- it assumes the guy will do this in his seat and not the restroom, it assumes it's a daytime flight with full light in the cabin and alert passengers, it assumes the passengers in the seats closest to him are fit, quick-thinking people, and so on.

The rest, well, here goes...

1) Yes, it's a logical fallacy to assume there have been no successful attempts to use commercial flights for terrorist purposes because of the TSA. However, it's just as illogical to assume there have been none in spite of the TSA. We don't know how many potential threats have been thwarted by the mere fact of their existence and their ramped up methods.

2) The underwear bomber is a clear example of non-TSA folks dropping the ball as much as it is an example that security checkpoint scans and pat-downs don't work. Even without his father contacting authorities and expressing his concern, this guy was clearly problematic from the moment he arrived at the airport. He never should have gotten past the ticketing counter. IIRC, his documents weren't even in order, were they?

3) That at some point a terrorist will hide a bomb inside his body and we will have no reasonable way to scan the general public for such a bomb is not an argument against scanning for what we can find. No system is perfect, but having no system at all is not the answer. We need to blend current security checkpoint methods with informational/behavioral profiling, not ditch one and rely exclusively on the other.

4) Passenger volume is only part of the problem. Passenger diversity is an issue as well. I don't think this precludes us from developing an Israeli-like protocol, but it makes it more complicated and it will be a long, long time until we have the properly trained personnel to do this -- not arguing against it, just saying it's not like it's gonna happen tomorrow.

5) Well, yeah, that's a stupid response, but some of the responses to the TSA measures deserved a stupid response, so it goes both ways.

6) Odds are you're right -- it's far less likely a Westernized Muslim will volunteer their child to be a human bomb, or they themselves will volunteer. However, there are pockets of extremist, radical Muslims living in this country already. It could happen. Not the biggest threat, but not impossible. There are families living in the US, educated in the US, seeminly assimilated into this culture, in which honor rapes still take place. I don't put anything past anyone who wants to harm us badly enough, and if we're talking Islamist terrorists, they are highly motivated and are in it for the long haul. They are infinitely more patient than we are. The middle aged extremist of today is tomorrow's granny.

7) I agree with this, but I don't see why we can't use both profiling and scanning. Better safe than sorry.

8) Sorry, but give the averagte American five minutes and he'll find something to complain about. We're a needy, whiny, selfish lot. We're also greedy and litigious and have too many lawyers running around with too much time on their hands. I guarantee you the second we start running deep background checks on every American who purchases an airline ticket, we'll have lawyers clogging the courts with all kinds of privacy suits and so on. Also, I've been patted down, both here and abroad and I wouldn't classify it as "groping". So, I'm not sure if I'd rather go through the scanner/pat-down or have someone messing around in my personal info. The scanner/pat-down doesn't bother me in the least, but I'd be really nervous about what this government would do with my sensitive info all in one place -- in some ways it's good the offices currently in possession of our personal info are all staffed by borderline functional glorified welfare recipients.

BTW, you're wrong about TSA-style scanning outside the US -- European airports do indeed have body scanners and pat-downs -- whether they're government run or not, I don't know, but I've definitely been through both in at least two European airports while boarding European carriers -- KLM for sure, in Amsterdam, and maybe Lufthansa in Switzerland, or another carrier in either Switzerland or Germany, but definitely not an American carrier.

Anyways, none of this addresses the most important difference (to me) between our security system and Israel's. Israel's is privatized, ours is government run.

"BTW, you're wrong about TSA-style scanning outside the US -- European airports do indeed have body scanners and pat-downs -- whether they're government run or not, I don't know, but I've definitely been through both in at least two European airports while boarding European carriers -- KLM for sure, in Amsterdam, and maybe Lufthansa in Switzerland, or another carrier in either Switzerland or Germany, but definitely not an American carrier."

In the past couple of months, I've been through Paris, Brussels, London and Frankfurt. Yes, there are scanners. No, they are not at all like the scanners TSA wants to use. Yes, there are pat-downs, no, they are not random, nor are they, unless something else is found, intrusive. They also swipe suspicious looking passengers and their luggage for explosive residue, but no, it's not random, either.

Europeans, not being as guilt-ridden as we are, or perhaps simply more hypocritical, do employ various forms of profiling.

They are too the same scanners everyone is freaking out over. They're the full-body, inside the unit, hands up, turn, hands up again, x-ray body scanners. They're definitely being used at Schiphol, and I know I went through one earlier this year in either Germany or Switzerland.

The pat-downs aren't necessarily random, but it's not clear what will be considered problematic enough to get the pat-down. A belt, an underwire bra, lip balm in your jeans pocket (got me!), etc. They are what you and others call "intrusive", but I found it all very professional and not in the least offensive.

I don't know what kind of profiling any particular European country or carrier engages in, but it's certainly not anything remotely like Israel's version.

Whatever you think of the process, however, until you have an Israeli-style profiling and clearing system in place, scanners and pat-downs are what we've got. Live with it or stay home. Seriously -- you want nothing instead -- you want to rely on those bozos at the TSA alone without machines to back them up?

By all means fight for profiling, but since it's all in the hands of a government agency I don't think we'll get anything nearly as effective as the Israeli process. I can't even begin to imagine how we can get rid of that nightmare of an agency now that it's 65K strong and growing. And that, btw, makes all the difference in Europe -- the personnel at the scanners and doing the pat-downs are more presentable and professional, better trained, more pleasant to deal with than your average TSA agent.

I fly all the time, to and from airports all over the country. I've yet to see anything to justify the paranoia about the TSA. Without fail, the TSA officers I've encountered are courteous, thorough professionals who give every indication of taking security (and my safety) seriously.