TSA Blinks! Passengers Rebel Against "Sexual Assault" Screenings

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Administration To Seek Balance In Airport Screening


Caught between complaints that airport screening has become too intrusive and threats of new terror attacks on aviation, Obama Administration officials say they are sensitive to criticisms that security measures go too far, but they are insisting that the measures now in place are justified by the risks.

With the Thanksgiving travel crush imminent, the chief of the Transportation Security Administration, John S. Pistole, said in a statement that his agency would try to make screening methods “as minimally invasive as possible.” But he gave no indication that the agency would reverse its move to full-body scanners, now deployed in 70 of 450 airports in the United States, and physical pat-downs for passengers who object to the scans.

“This has always been viewed as an evolving program that will be adapted as conditions warrant, and we greatly appreciate the cooperation and understanding of the American people,” Mr. Pistole said.

Security officials said the new procedures were the only way to detect explosives hidden under clothing. “We cannot forget that less than one year ago a suicide bomber with explosives in his underwear tried to bring down a plane over Detroit,” Mr. Pistole said.

The debate over the proper balance of security and privacy was unfolding as Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the terrorist group responsible for the Detroit airliner bomb last Christmas and for placing explosive devices aboard cargo planes last month, threatened similar plots to sow fear, disrupt travel and transport, and impose huge costs on the United States.

“This strategy of attacking the enemy with smaller but more frequent operations is what some may refer to as the strategy of a thousand cuts,” the Yemen-based group said in a new issue of its English-language magazine, Inspire, which resembles a glossy publication but is available for download on militant Web sites. “The aim is to bleed the enemy to death.”

The T.S.A., which screens about two million air passengers a day, began testing the full-body scanners in 2007, installed them more widely starting last year and accelerated their use after the failed plot last Christmas. If a screener spots something suspicious on a scan, which shows an outline of the unclothed body, or if a passenger prefers to skip the scan, the passenger must undergo a physical search that many passengers have found intrusive.

The furor began after Nov. 1, when the agency introduced the more aggressive pat-down procedure. Despite the storm of criticism from passengers, pilots and members of Congress, agency officials point to opinion polls showing that about 80 percent of the public supports the use of body scanners. About 1 percent of passengers have opted out of the scanner and undergone pat-downs so far this month, officials said.



Congressional leaders have promised to hold hearings on the issue.

Still, the administration has appeared to be caught off guard by the outrage of some passengers. Mr. Pistole agreed on Saturday to demands from pilots that they be exempted from the searches, after critics noted that a pilot who wants to destroy a plane hardly needs explosives to do so.

On Saturday in Lisbon, President Obama acknowledged public complaints but said he had been told by T.S.A. and counterterrorism advisers that “at this point” the measures “are the only ones right now that they consider to be effective against the kind of threat that we saw in the Christmas Day bombing.”

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday that she did not want to “second guess” security officials, but added that “everyone, including our security experts, are looking for ways to diminish the impact on the traveling public.”

On another Sunday talk show, CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Mrs. Clinton said she would not like to go through a security pat-down.

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

On CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, Mr. Pistole, a 26-year F.B.I. veteran who took over at the T.S.A. in June, described the scanners and pat-downs as the last line of defense against terrorists who evade no-fly lists and the “behavior detection officers” looking out for suspicious conduct at airports.

“If they do opt out, we just want to make sure, for example, on Christmas Day,” Mr. Pistole said, in a clear reference to the underwear bomber, that “they receive a thorough pat-down so they don’t pose a risk to that plane.”

In a sense, the strategy trumpeted by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in the new issue of Inspire represents a victory for Western counterterrorism. The group acknowledged that Sept. 11-style attacks may be impossible to organize without being detected by the expanded intelligence dragnet.

“Really, it’s a good marketing spin on a pretty desperate strategy,” said James Carafano, a security specialist at the Heritage Foundation.

But the magazine showed that Al-Qaeda planners have an increasing awareness that smaller-scale attacks, including those focused on air cargo, can cause enormous economic damage and public anxiety.

“It has a particular impact, coming as it does at a time when we’re arguing about how to prevent the kind of attack the same group tried at Christmas,” said Bruce Hoffman, an expert on terrorism at Georgetown University.

Both Mr. Carafano and Mr. Hoffman said they would advise the administration to revise the screening procedures. Mr. Carafano said limiting the body scans and pat-downs to secondary screening, for travelers who raise suspicions, would be more sensible than expanding the costly scanners to all travelers.

Mr. Hoffman said the administration should move away from adding more layers of security for every passenger in response to every new plot and consider an Israeli-style approach to identify passengers who pose a particular risk, based on advance intelligence, questioning travelers and watching their behavior.

“We’ve had nine years of just grafting security measures one on another,” Mr. Hoffman said. “Maybe it’s time to step back, take a hard look and look for a new approach.”





T.S.A. Grants Airline Pilots An Exception To Screenings


At least one group of air travelers will get a break from the body scans and pat-downs that have provoked a national outcry.

On Friday, the Transportation Security Administration announced that it would let uniformed airline pilots skip the screenings, reversing an earlier policy that everyone had to go through the screenings as part of the agency’s efforts to prevent terrorist attacks. Pilots who are traveling out of uniform or not on official business will still be subject to searches, the agency said.

The full-body scans and pat-downs being performed at a number of airports have angered travelers, many of whom said the searches were invasive and likened them to virtual strip searches. Passengers have also raised concerns about the long-term effect of radiation exposure from airport scanners.

The agency said pilots would still have to pass through a metal detector at airport checkpoints and present two photo identifications that would be verified against a flight crew database.

The government ruling comes after an extensive two-year lobbying campaign by unions and organizations representing airline pilots. The groups made the argument that because their members had already been through extensive background checks by federal law enforcement officials, there was no need for the added security searches.

Those lobbying for changes in pilot screenings include Captain Chesley B. Sullenberger, who gained national fame last year after safely landing a plane in the Hudson River with over 100 passengers on board.

“Allowing these uniformed pilots, whose identity has been verified, to go through expedited screening at the checkpoint just makes for smart security and an efficient use of our resources,” John S. Pistole, the agency’s administrator, said in a statement.

Dwayne Baird, a spokesman for the T.S.A., said on Saturday that the ruling would apply only to pilots, and not flight attendants.

“They will still have to go through the same screening as everyone else,” Mr. Baird said.

Flight attendants and their unions have argued that they should also be allowed to bypass the pat-downs and screenings, as well.

“Flight attendants are subject to extensive background checks, so there is no reasonable explanation why this highly vetted group of aviation employees continues to be exposed to lengthy airport security lines which may affect their ability to report to the aircraft on time,” Patricia A. Friend, president of the Association of Flight Attendants, said in a statement this month.

Mr. Baird said he did not have any information on why flight attendants were not included in the new T.S.A. policy, even though they undergo the same background checks as pilots. He said he had no information about forthcoming changes for ordinary passengers.

Questioned on the protocol while at a NATO summit meeting in Portugal, President Obama acknowledged travelers’ frustrations. “What I’ve said to the T.S.A. is that you have to constantly refine and measure whether what we’re doing is the only way to assure the American people’s safety,” he said. “And you also have to think through, ‘Are there other ways of doing it that are less intrusive?’ ”



View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, Denver Post, Meet The Press, MSNBC, New York Times, Politico, The Guardian, Youtube, Google Maps

"If You Touch My Junk I'm Having You Arrested", John Tyner's Original Video

"Don't Touch My Junk" Passenger Sparks Revolt Against Airport Searches


US man who refused a groin pat-down inspires campaign to stop intimate searches and full body scans.

It all started with a man who said no one was going to touch his "Junk".

John Tyner turned down an invitation to step into one of the new body scanners springing up in American airports which offer security guards an all but naked view of passengers. When Tyner refused, the guard at San Diego said he would have to submit to a body pat-down and then went on to describe what that meant.

Tyner said he was fine with that up to the point where a hand would explore his groin.

"If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested," he said.

Needless to say, Tyner didn't fly. Instead he was threatened with a civil suit and a fine of $10,000 (£6,200).

A week later, the incident has reverberated across the country to the halls of Congress and prompted a campaign for travellers to boycott body scanners next Wednesday, the day before Thanksgiving and one of the busiest for American airports.

Tyner recorded the encounter with airport security using his camera phone. The video went viral and days later the head of the Transport Security Administration (TSA), John Pistole, found himself before Congress defending the full body scanners introduced after a Nigerian terrorist attempted to blow up a plane over Detroit last Christmas Day with explosives hidden in his underwear. Pistole was also forced to defend the introduction at the beginning of this month of more probing body searches for those who do not wish to go through the scanners. The search includes a firm pressing of a security guard's hand on genitalia and breasts.

"The outcry is huge," Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson from Texas told Pistole. "I know that you're aware of it. But we've got to see some action."

Senator George LeMieux said: "I wouldn't want my wife to be touched in the way that these folks are being touched. I wouldn't want to be touched that way."

Pistole was having none of it.

"I'm not going to change those policies," he said. The TSA chief said that most air passengers, given a choice between a plane full of people who have been screened and one where they have not, would choose the former: "I think everybody will want to opt for the screening with the assurance that that flight is safe and secure."

On Thursday, Congressman Ron Paul introduced legislation to counter what he called the "calamity" of airport security. It proposes barring the government from doing what ordinary citizens would not be allowed to do to strangers – photographing them naked or touching their private parts.

"If we can't take nude photos of people why do we allow the government to do it? We would go to jail," he said. "Something has to be done. Everybody's fed up. The people are fed up. The pilots are fed up. I'm fed up. What we're putting up with at the airport is so symbolic of us just not standing up and saying enough is enough. I know the American people are starting to wake up but our government, those in charge, Congress, are doing nothing."

Paul highlighted an issue that critics latched on to: that pilots also have to be body scanned or intimately searched.

"Can you think how silly the whole thing is? The pilot has a gun in the cockpit and he's managing this aircraft which is a missile, and we make him go through this groping, x-ray exercise, having people feel in their underwear. It's absurd," he said.

For all the noise, a CBS poll this week found that four out of five Americans see body scanners as a necessary security measure. It has not gone unnoticed that some of those most critical of the government over the issue – including conservative members of Congress, Fox News and websites such as the Drudge Report – vigorously accused the Obama administration of security lapses because the "underwear bomber" was able to get explosives on to a plane.

Pistole has strongly criticised the call to boycott screenings.

"On the eve of a major national holiday and less than one year after al-Qaida's failed attack last Christmas Day, it is irresponsible for a group to suggest travellers opt out of the very screening that may prevent an attack using non-metallic explosives," he said.








Virtual Strip Search Backlash Goes Viral


The Internet is helping to fuel anger over air traveler screening, but changes to what some have termed a "virtual strip search" are unlikely to materialize before the busy Thanksgiving travel period draws near.

John Tyner, a software engineer from Oceanside, Calif., became an Internet sensation after telling a TSA screener: "If you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested." Tyner had the foresight to record the exchange on his mobile phone (videos are here) and is now facing a possible lawsuit for entering a security line and then not allowing a government employee access to his crotch during a pat-down search.

Foes who had hoped a Senate hearing would lead to a privacy outcry on Capitol Hill were disappointed when Democratic senators applauded the Obama administration and Republicans offering only modest criticism. Indeed, Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate committee overseeing air travel, told the TSA chief: "I think you're doing a terrific job."

An administrator with the Transportation Security Agency said the agency would be "announcing some new policies" in the "near future" that will change the screening process for pilots, who have protested being forced to choose between an X-ray machine's "virtual strip search" or a pat-down from a TSA agent.


View Larger Map


Sources: CNET, Denver Post, The Guardian, Youtube, Google Maps

TSA "Sexual Assault" Passenger Pat Downs Irk Airlines; Violate Rights

Florida Airport Considers Ditching TSA


An Orlando, Florida, airport official wants to join the small group of U.S. airports who use a private company to screen passengers instead of the Transportation Security Administration.

Larry Dale, president of the Sanford Airport Authority in Orlando, says the airport first considered the change in February and it was approved on Oct. 5.

"Airports are unique...one size doesn't fit all," Dale told CNN's American Morning on Friday. Dale says his board and staff have been looking at other airports that provide their own security in preparation for making the switch at Orlando Sanford International Airport. Dale says his research shows that using a private security screening company would be "more efficient and more enjoyable to the public."

Dale's comments come during a week in which the TSA has been under fire for it's airport screening procedures, including imaging technology and pat downs. TSA is in charge of protecting the nation's transportation systems.

Private airport security is not uncommon. The TSA lists 16 airports that are currently participating in its Screening Partnership Program. They include San Francisco International Airport, Kansas City International Airport, Greater Rochester International Airport and Key West International Airport. Participating airports work with TSA to hire an approved security contractor and must follow TSA security guidelines when screening passengers and baggage, according to the TSA website.

"All commercial airports are regulated by TSA whether the actual screening is performed by the TSA officers or private companies. The TSA sets the security standards that must be followed and includes the use of enhanced pat downs and imaging technology, if installed at the airport," said TSA spokesman Greg Soule.

Congressman John Mica, R-Florida, the ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, wrote a letter to the nation's 100 busiest airports urging them to ditch the TSA for private security.




Controversy Over Pat-Downs, Body Scans Lands At DIA


Despite ongoing criticism from some Washington lawmakers and many travelers, Transportation Security Administration chief John Pistole refused Wednesday to back off the agency's position that tougher airport screening techniques are needed to counter evolving threats.

"I'm not going to change those policies," he declared to lawmakers.

At U.S. airports, the TSA has been deploying more advanced imaging scanners that perform a kind of electronic strip-search on passengers and allow screeners hidden in control rooms to search the images for concealed weapons and explosives.

And in recent weeks, TSA screeners also have escalated the pat-down procedure on passengers in a way that some say is far too intrusive.

"I'm frankly bothered by the level of these pat-downs," Sen. George LeMieux, R-Fla., told Pistole, who was testifying before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

"I wouldn't want my wife to be touched in the way that these folks are being touched," LeMieux said. "I wouldn't want to be touched that way."

Pistole, who has been subjected to a pat-down himself, said: "It is clearly more invasive." But the procedures are necessary, he said, to detect devices not seen before.

As passengers traveled through Denver International Airport on Wednesday in advance of the Thanksgiving rush, some invoked their constitutional right against unreasonable search, while others were more forgiving of efforts to keep travel safe.

Jeffrey "Gator" Henry of Charlotte, N.C., moved through security in skimpy gym shorts and a sleeveless tank top as part of his plan to reject screening by advanced imaging machines — the devices that use either millimeter-wave or backscatter X-ray technology — and to request a pat-down instead.

"It's an invasion of privacy," said Henry, a television and film producer, as he waited at DIA's A concourse checkpoint.

Henry said he's joined the nascent movement that is asking travelers to voluntarily opt out of screening by the full-body scanners in favor of more time-consuming pat-downs. Some have designated the day before Thanksgiving as National Opt-Out Day.

"I dressed this way so there is nothing to pat down," he said of the more intensive TSA hand searches.

TSA pat-downs have evolved into more of a light massage, with screeners running their hands up and down the arms, torsos and legs of those passengers selected for the extra screening procedure.

Anthony Giovingo of New Orleans was flying home after visiting his daughter in the Denver area and said he is unfazed about full-body scanning.

"It doesn't bother me," Giovingo said. "I'd rather go through the scanner than be patted down. It's quicker and less invasive. I have nothing to hide, so what's the problem?"

Smooth flying for some

On Wednesday, it appeared that most travelers, including Henry, were able to avoid screening by the advanced imaging devices or pat-downs by passing through the checkpoint metal detectors without generating alarms.

Jill Johnson of Colorado Springs arrived at DIA from Dallas and said at that city's airport, she similarly had cleared the metal detector and avoided the more controversial screening techniques.

Johnson said she has not yet been screened at an airport by a full-body scanner but would not object if she were asked to submit to such an electronic scan.

"Everybody has to understand that we're talking about preventing another 9/11," she said. "It might be an invasion of privacy, but we're talking about a matter of life and death."

Of the enhanced pat-downs, Johnson added, "If it's done respectfully, people should allow it."

TSA's new pat-down procedure is "more up close and personal" than earlier hand-search techniques, but it is "not just Keystone Kops making it up as they go along," said Richard Bloom, director of terrorism, intelligence and security studies at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Prescott, Ariz.

New TSA techniques develop out of a collaboration between the security and intelligence personnel that is constantly evaluating ever-changing threats, said Bloom, who spent 20 years in U.S. intelligence work.

The TSA operates 768 security checkpoints, with 2,225 screening lanes, at 458 airports across the country. Currently, the agency has deployed 385 of the advanced imaging scanners at 68 U.S. airports, including six at the three checkpoints at DIA. Those six use millimeter-wave technology.

In remarks to the Senate committee, Pistole said the TSA's goal is to have 1,000 advanced imaging machines deployed at airports by the end of 2011.

A topic for the Courts

Currently, there is no legal "bright line" to determine whether advanced imaging scans or intensive pat-downs amount to unreasonable searches of passengers, said Sam Kamin, an associate professor of constitutional law and criminal procedure at the University of Denver law school.

As lawsuits develop, courts undoubtedly will be looking at the privacy question, but they likely will be "loathe to second-guess" the TSA's balancing of security and privacy, Kamin said.

TSA officials undoubtedly would rather be on Capitol Hill answering questions about screening intrusiveness than "explaining why an airliner was brought down," he said.


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, Denver Post, Fox News, The Guardian, Youtube, Google Maps

Another TSA Screw Up: Forces Disabled Boy To Remove Braces

Another Terrorist Stopped By Vigilant TSA Officer: 4-Year-Old Boy In Leg Braces


Now we know how the "Crotch Bomber" got through security – TSA Screeners are busy terrorizing disabled toddlers.

4-year-old Ryan Thomas is developmentally disabled as a result of being 16 weeks premature and has to wear corrective braces. His ankles are malformed and his legs have little or no muscle tone. He only just learned how to walk, briefly, on his own, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer.

But that didn’t seem to matter to the Transportation Security Administration Screeners at Philadelphia International airport.

It was Ryan's first trip to Disney in March 2009, according the paper's columnist Daniel Rubin. All was going well for the Thomases -- they had gotten to the airport with hours to spare before their flight, but as it turns out, they would need that extra time.

Ryan's father was breaking down his son's stroller to put it on the conveyor belt as his wife, Leona, walked Ryan through the metal detector. As expected the alarm went off and Leona tried to explain the situation, the paper said.

The screener replied that the boy would have to take the braces off and walk through the detector again. When Leona Thomas attempted to walk with Ryan she was told he would have to do it alone.

She tried, calmly, to explain that Ryan could barely walk with the braces, let alone without them, but the compassionless screener was deaf to her pleas, according to the newspaper.

Meanwhile Bob Thomas was getting increasingly agitated. He is an officer in Camden's emergency crime suppression team, so he understood the need for security, but this was overkill, he told the Philadelphia Inquirer.

The Thomases eventually complied and Ryan made it through on his own, but Bob immediately asked for a supervisor. The supervisor was less than sympathetic and stood by the screener's actions. A fellow police officer even told Bob Thomas to drop it and go enjoy his vacation.

But Bob Thomas didn’t forget and after his trip he called the airport manager. Eventually, with help from Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Daniel Rubin, the TSA finally responded to the incident saying that the boy never should have had to remove his braces and they would be looking into what went wrong that day in March.

For the Thomases that probably feels like too little too late.

Sources: Philadelphia Inquirer, TSA, CBS News

Fire The TSA! Replace With U.S. Army Veterans Or Cops

President Obama, It's Time To Fire The TSA!



Today, DHS's Napolitano's response to the "crotchbomber": "We're looking to make sure that this sort of incident cannot recur." But the TSA's response to Abdulmutalib's attempt makes one thing clear: We must stop pretending the TSA is making us safer.

Security expert Bruce Schneier nails the core incompetency: "For years I've been saying 'Only two things have made flying safer since 9/11: the reinforcement of cockpit doors, and the fact that passengers know now to resist hijackers.'"

So what has the TSA done in response to the attempted attack? They've told airlines to make passengers stay in their seats during the last hour of flight. They've made it verboten for passengers to hold anything in their laps, again only during the last hour of flight. Perhaps most hilariously telling, they've forbidden pilots from announcing when a plane is flying over certain cities and landmarks.

There is no other way to interpret it: The TSA is saying clearly that they can't prevent terrorists from getting explosives on airplanes, but by god, they'll make sure those planes explode only when the TSA says it's okay.

I want our government to prevent terrorism and to make flights safer. But we are spending billions of dollars and man-hours to fight a threat that is less likely to kill a traveler than being struck by lightning. In the last decade, according to statistician Nate Silver, there has been "one terrorist incident per 11,569,297,667 miles flown the equivalent to 1,459,664 trips around the diameter of the Earth, 24,218 round trips to the Moon, or two round trips to Neptune."

(Sadly, this does mean that in the future we can expect one out of every two round-trip flights to Neptune to be hijacked.)

The TSA isn't saving lives. We, the passengers, are saving our own. Since its inception, the TSA has been structured in such a way as to prevent specific terror scenarios, attempting to disrupt a handful of insanely specific tactics, while continuing to disenfranchise and demoralize the citizens who are actually doing the work that a billion-dollar government agency—an agency that received an additional $128 million just this year for new checkpoint explosive screening technology—has failed to do.

We just had the first legitimate attempted attack in years, and the TSA changes the threat level from orange...to orange.

This goes far beyond simple customer satisfaction issues like "Take Back Takeoff."
(Although they are of a kind.)

It has to do with wildly irrationally response of a government agency in the face of failure. An agency whose leader, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, said at first blush that the attempted attack showed that—here comes the Katrina-class foot-in-mouth—"the system worked."

I don't want to die on an airplane. I don't want to die in my home while eating an organic bagel infested with parasites that lay eggs on my liver. I don't want to die from starvation or bad water or a thousand other things that I pay our government to monitor and regulate.

But I also don't expect the government to protect from the literally endless possibilities and threats that could occur at any point to end my life or the life of the few I love.

It's been nearly a decade since terrorists used airplanes to attack our country, and last week's attempt makes it clear that the lack of terrorist attacks have nothing to do with the increasing gauntlet of whirring machines, friskings, and arbitrary bureaucratic provisions, but simply that for the most part, there just aren't that many terrorists trying to blow up planes. Because god knows if there were, the TSA isn't capable of stopping them.

We're just one bad burrito away from the TSA forcing passengers to choke back an Imodium and a Xanax before being hogtied to our seats.

President Obama, don't let this attack—this one attack that was thankfully stopped by smart, fearless passengers and airline staff—take us further in the wrong direction. I don't think I'm alone in feeling this way. Americans of all stripes and affiliation standing up to say, "This isn't working. We gave you our money. You're not making us safer." We appreciate the attempt to make us safer and acknowledge that it came from an honest attempt to protect American (and the rest of the world's) lives.

But it's a failure. It's wrongheaded. It's a farce. Tear it down. Put the money towards the sort of actions at which our government excels, like intelligence. The failure of the TSA leaves us no choice, but it's okay. The American people are ready to take back the responsibility for our own safety. Really, we already have.



View Larger Map


Sources: Gizmodo, The Daily Beast, CNN, CBS News, Fox News, Youtube, Google Maps