Napolitano: We’re doing this for your own good

posted at 10:00 am on November 15, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

After a crescendo of criticism over new, more aggressive pat-downs at airport security stations for travelers, Janet Napolitano penned an essay for USA Today defending her new policies and pleading for patience.   The Homeland Security Secretary insists that the pat-downs are not new and are necessary for travelers who refuse to use the metal detectors or the new and controversial scanners, which she insists are perfectly safe and secure:

And we ask the American people to play an important part of our layered defense. We ask for cooperation, patience and a commitment to vigilance in the face of a determined enemy.

As part of our layered approach, we have expedited the deployment of new Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) units to help detect concealed metallic and non-metallic threats on passengers. These machines are now in use at airports nationwide, and the vast majority of travelers say they prefer this technology to alternative screening measures.

AIT machines are safe, efficient, and protect passenger privacy. They have been independently evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, who have all affirmed their safety. And the weapons and other dangerous and prohibited items we’ve found during AIT screenings have illustrated their security value time and again.

Rigorous privacy safeguards are also in place to protect the traveling public. All images generated by imaging technology are viewed in a walled-off location not visible to the public. The officer assisting the passenger never sees the image, and the officer viewing the image never interacts with the passenger. The imaging technology that we use cannot store, export, print or transmit images.

If an anomaly is detected during screening with AIT, if an alarm occurs after a passenger goes through a walk-through metal detector, or if a passenger opts out of either of these screening methods, we use pat-downs to help detect hidden and dangerous items like the one we saw in the failed terrorist attack last Christmas Day.

The question remains as to whether that last claim is actually valid.  If the patdowns only take place after an alarm, then Napolitano’s argument rests on the notion that the PETN underwear of the EunuchBomber would have triggered either a scanner or metal detector.  According to at least one media source, it wouldn’t have triggered either one:

Better screening could potentially identify more conventional explosive devices, including random searches. It is here that we should focus our efforts, not on ratcheting up the disproportionate restrictions on air passengers. But given that PETN, the substance used in this device, cannot be picked up by scanners or by dogs, governments have to invest in developing technology that can do so.

Besides, in that instance, TSA didn’t control access to the aircraft.  The terrorist boarded with his explosive underwear in Amsterdam.  The real failure was letting him on the plane in the first place, since American intelligence knew he was a potential threat, but failed to communicate it properly.  All the pat-downs in the country wouldn’t have prevented that attack, and unless the US takes over aviation security in every airport with flights to our country, they won’t close that loop with their new scanners and patdowns.

Napolitano concludes with this argument:

Our security depends on us being more determined and more creative to adapt to evolving threats. It relies upon a multi-layered approach that leverages the strengths of our international partners, the latest intelligence, and the patience and vigilance of the American traveling public.

If we want a truly multilayered approach, why not follow the Israeli model, the most successful in the world at preventing terrorism in the air?  Train TSA personnel to become expert at interacting with passengers, finding clues to potential threats, and save the patdowns and scanners for those people who might actually present a threat rather than elect on the random-selection process.   It doesn’t take a math major to figure out that an enemy like al-Qaeda can take a shotgun approach to such a security scheme and have a high probability of getting at least a few people past the barricades and onto the planes.    That would have the virtue of dealing directly with the issue rather than hiding behind politically-correct nostrums and muggings of three-year-olds.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Sporty1946 on November 15, 2010 at 1:43 PM

Most dems are now perverts? You expect me to take you seriously? It’s a pretty logical connection, the one between security conscious conservatives and the expanding security state. The dem-perv connection on the other hand…maybe you should lie down? Are you feeling dizzy? Do you hear voices?

ernesto on November 15, 2010 at 1:46 PM

The Homeland Security Secretary insists that the pat-downs are not new and are necessary for travelers who refuse to use the metal detectors or the new and controversial scanners, which she insists are perfectly safe and secure.

The thing is, one can elect to go through the metal detectors at airports with the nekkid scanners…but the crotch grabs come with that.

steveegg on November 15, 2010 at 1:51 PM

Exactly how do these scanners stop things like bombs in print cartridges?

darwin on November 15, 2010 at 2:07 PM

Most dems are now perverts?

ernesto on November 15, 2010 at 1:46 PM

Pretty much!

No wonder they’re putting naked-scanners in all the airports. Statists are twisted perverts. It’s Caligula all over again.

Rae on November 15, 2010 at 2:10 PM

Jimbo3,

This is an administrative search. Warrants aren’t needed for them. It’s like a sobriety check for all cars at a fixed checkpoint.

Bullsh*t. This is not a breathalyzer test. Nor is it simply an innocuous “administrative search”. The new procedures amount to a virtual strip search or very invasive public groping and fondling.

If this isn’t a violation of the 4th Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure then we might as well shred the damn Constitution now.

Mike Honcho on November 15, 2010 at 2:10 PM

If this isn’t a violation of the 4th Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure then we might as well shred the damn Constitution now.

Mike Honcho on November 15, 2010 at 2:10 PM

All we really need are the Commerce and General Welfare Clauses! /progs

Rae on November 15, 2010 at 2:13 PM

Rae on November 15, 2010 at 2:10 PM

In the same vein, all conservatives are birchers, right?

ernesto on November 15, 2010 at 2:15 PM

If the libtards would put half as much effort into securing our physical borders as they do trying to cop a feel at the airport, then we wouldn’t have so many criminals living here illegally and driving up our health care costs, sucking tax money away, pulling money away from Americans in need who could use help and driving our property values down and our crime rates up.

Wolftech on November 15, 2010 at 2:18 PM

The serious danger of plane hijackings happened on 9/11 when the hijackers forced their way into the cockpits and turned the planes into missiles. This is now almost impossible, meaning that a terrorist attacking a plane will threaten a few hundred people at most.

Now think about all the times you are in a place with a few hundred people. Church. A medium-sized office building. A high school basketball game. Opening weekend for the latest Harry Potter movie. How long before our government decides strip searches are the order of the day wherever 2 or 300 gather?

CJ on November 15, 2010 at 2:29 PM

Now think about all the times you are in a place with a few hundred people. Church. A medium-sized office building. A high school basketball game. Opening weekend for the latest Harry Potter movie. How long before our government decides strip searches are the order of the day wherever 2 or 300 gather?
CJ on November 15, 2010 at 2:29 PM

Welcome to the United States…the world’s largest nudist colony.

BobMbx on November 15, 2010 at 2:45 PM

There’s no evidence of groping of the nun from the picture. And it sounds like the 3 year old started her melt-down when her teddy bear was put through the scanner. Nothing in the video suggested she was groped either.

Jimbo3 on November 15, 2010 at 12:56 PM
You clearly didn’t watch the video.

Take your false propaganda somewhere else.

fossten on November 15, 2010 at 1:05 PM

I did watch the video. She was not groped.

Jimbo3 on November 15, 2010 at 2:45 PM

Now think about all the times you are in a place with a few hundred people. Church. A medium-sized office building. A high school basketball game. Opening weekend for the latest Harry Potter movie. How long before our government decides strip searches are the order of the day wherever 2 or 300 gather?

CJ on November 15, 2010 at 2:29 PM

Strip search or body/personal item scan (and denial of admission for anyone not willing to undergo the scan)? And probably starting right after there is a successful terrorist attack on a sports event, movie, concert or shopping center.

Jimbo3 on November 15, 2010 at 2:47 PM

Every time Obama oversteps his authority in regards to his ramping up ‘security’ at airports (and now train, subway & bus stations) supporters of the Patriot Act are harassed and told to shut up.

When the Patriot Act was passed we had Patriots in charge of the country and I am still waiting for anyone to produce evidence that the law was abused while Bush was President.

Sporty1946 on November 15, 2010 at 2:48 PM

I don’t fly much but my sister does, every week for business and frequent vacations. Here’s what she says:

They do random pat downs at DIA. In Mexico, they pat down everyone and search every bag by hand before boarding. At DIA, I avoid the lines where the agent is female so they can’t do it. Plus there is only 1 body scan machine. I’ve gone through it a couple times, but avoid that line too. What’s amazing to me is that the TSA agents and some of the pilots just go through the “special” door and are never screened. So the woman searching the nun could carry whatever she wants past security. The whole process is ridiculous and doesn’t make anyone any safer. Anyone could just figure out the process to avoid specific screening. Philadelphia screening is completely different. They don’t care.

So every airport does it differently, and that makes us secure how?

Common Sense on November 15, 2010 at 2:52 PM

Jimbo3 on November 15, 2010 at 2:47 PM

Probably so with control freaks like you! I thought you leftists were all about Privacy Rights and ‘Keep you nose out my bedroom’. Ya’ll just want to use the force of the gov’t practice your homoerotic fantasies in public.

Sporty1946 on November 15, 2010 at 2:52 PM

Mike Hondo:

http://www.metnews.com/articles/2007/auka081307.htm

Jimbo3 on November 15, 2010 at 2:53 PM

Jimbo3 on November 15, 2010 at 2:47 PM
Probably so with control freaks like you! I thought you leftists were all about Privacy Rights and ‘Keep you nose out my bedroom’. Ya’ll just want to use the force of the gov’t practice your homoerotic fantasies in public.

Sporty1946 on November 15, 2010 at 2:52 PM

Unless you’re planning on being part of the Mile High Club, your bedroom is not going on an airplane.

Jimbo3 on November 15, 2010 at 2:55 PM

Jimbo3

Hold him, he’s scared.

Rae on November 15, 2010 at 2:56 PM

You totally miss the point, Jimbo. Or you are just ignoring it.

Sporty1946 on November 15, 2010 at 3:03 PM

This is the same government that wants to tax you for using a tanning bed.

But your betters are quite willing to irradiate commuters everyday on the subway, and pilots who already have an occupational hazard of greater than average exposure to radiation.

SarahW on November 15, 2010 at 3:03 PM

The constitutionality of the screening currently being implemented has yet to be determined. The Ninth Circuit case doesn’t control anything outside the Ninth Circuit, and the current facts are distinguishable.

These security measures are highly intrusive. The government will be required to show a very strong justification for these particular measures, and that other measures just won’t do the job. I don’t think the facts will support the argument they must make.

novaculus on November 15, 2010 at 3:12 PM

That would have the virtue of dealing directly with the issue rather than hiding behind politically-correct nostrums and muggings of three-year-olds.

And it would also be politically incorrect, so therefore anathema to liberals. Even after ‘pc’ has killed people, leftists will not abandon it; they will gladly sacrifice the rest of us on their alter.

Midas on November 15, 2010 at 3:14 PM

You totally miss the point, Jimbo. Or you are just ignoring it.

Sporty1946 on November 15, 2010 at 3:03 PM

Jury is still out on whether libs like Jimbo3, crr6, etc are intellectually incapable of understanding facts and logic, or whether they’re morally/ethically incapable of intellectual honesty.

Midas on November 15, 2010 at 3:16 PM

This is an administrative search. Warrants aren’t needed for them. It’s like a sobriety check for all cars at a fixed checkpoint.

The next time a sobriety check includes a physical exam that could yield a reasonably accurate guess as to the size of your johnson, you *might* be in the neighborhood of having a point.

Midas on November 15, 2010 at 3:19 PM

Jury is still out on whether libs like Jimbo3, crr6, etc are intellectually incapable of understanding facts and logic, or whether they’re morally/ethically incapable of intellectual honesty.

Midas on November 15, 2010 at 3:16 PM

It is the later. If we currently had a Republican president who was stupid enough to allow something like this they would be totally opposed to these new security measures. I will give one resident leftist some credit though. At least ernesto is opposed to government sanctioned groping.

NotCoach on November 15, 2010 at 3:23 PM

What would Ronald Reagan do?

Ask the Pilot: News flash: Deadly terrorism existed before 9/11
We’ve been dealing with the same threats for decades. But we used to be a lot calmer about it, less self-defeating

Well, have a look at the debased state of airport security today. We continue enacting the wrong policies, wasting our security resources and manpower…much of our approach remains incoherent. Cargo and packages go uninspected while passengers are groped and harassed over umbrellas and harmless hobby knives. Uniformed pilots are forced to remove their belts and endure embarrassing pat-downs.

And what of our rights as citizens? Body scanners are in the news this week. If a decade ago people were told that a day was coming when passengers would need to be looked at naked before getting on a plane, nobody would have believed it. Yet here we are, and what might be next?
[...]
In the 1980s we did not overreact. We did not stage ill-fated invasions of distant countries. People did not cease traveling and the airline industry did not fall into chaos.

Rae on November 15, 2010 at 3:23 PM

The constitutionality of the screening currently being implemented has yet to be determined. The Ninth Circuit case doesn’t control anything outside the Ninth Circuit, and the current facts are distinguishable.

novaculus on November 15, 2010 at 3:12 PM

True, but earlier cases (with different facts) generally come to the same conclusion.

BTW, if you’re mad about this, then what do you think about the government’s (Customs’) ability to search your laptop and read and copy your entire hard drive without any need for suspicion when you enter and leave the country?

http://www.eff.org/cases/us-v-arnold

Jimbo3 on November 15, 2010 at 3:31 PM

Jury is still out on whether libs like Jimbo3, crr6, etc are intellectually incapable of understanding facts and logic, or whether they’re morally/ethically incapable of intellectual honesty.

Midas on November 15, 2010 at 3:16 PM
It is the later. If we currently had a Republican president who was stupid enough to allow something like this they would be totally opposed to these new security measures. I will give one resident leftist some credit though. At least ernesto is opposed to government sanctioned groping.

NotCoach on November 15, 2010 at 3:23 PM

I probably fly about twelve times a year for various reasons. I like the additional security. Yes, I can understand your objections. No, I disagree with your points (and your characterization of this as “groping” in general).

Jimbo3 on November 15, 2010 at 3:33 PM

Jimbo3 on November 15, 2010 at 3:33 PM

So you’ve been bamboozled into thinking the TSA has actually increased security? What additional security?

They have created the APPEARANCE of additional security, but that’s all it is.

If you actually feel safer, you are seriously deluded.

dogsoldier on November 15, 2010 at 3:46 PM

When Nappy, SFNan, the Undertaker and his boss start using that xray screener every time they fly, then I’ll admit maybe it is safe. Until then I’ll drive where I need to go.

Kissmygrits on November 15, 2010 at 3:53 PM

I did watch the video. She was not groped.

Jimbo3 on November 15, 2010 at 2:45 PM

Ok, so you’re saying you could go to a local playground, find a small girl, and run your hand up between her legs “until you meet resistance” and that wouldn’t be a problem with anyone?

I like laughing at your comments too much to recommend you get a child molestation charge and the jail time that would occur if you tried this; but at least admit that’s exactly what would happen.

gekkobear on November 15, 2010 at 3:57 PM

Jimbo3,

The link you posted in no way refutes my argument. There was abundant evidence of probable cause in that case. First of all the guy didn’t have proper identification. Second, the individual was wanded several times and set off the alarms each time. Lastly, the police arrested the individual, they searched his belongings, and only then found methamphetamines.

An individual flying from point A to point B does not constitute probable cause for a virtual strip search or invasive public groping and fondling. By any sane standard that is unreasonable.

Mike Honcho on November 15, 2010 at 4:08 PM

a determined enemy

Just to clarify, Napolitano’s “determined enemy” is still Tea Partiers, military veterans, and 10th Amendment supporters, right?

malclave on November 15, 2010 at 4:13 PM

Napolitano: We’re doing this for your own good….

“Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.” ~CS Lewis

Venril on November 15, 2010 at 4:24 PM

More from my sister:

All they have to do is observe like I do to see the vulnerable portal’s at DIA. But, DIA is much stricter than Philly. Philly is a complete joke. The body scan is really bad which is why I avoid it. When I walked out, I saw the image of me. Horrible! And, although there was a girl standing there, I know there was a guy in the back looking at all of them. There is absolutely no privacy involved. The pat down is very intrusive as well. I don’t like them feeling up my privates.

If she could see it, so could other passengers and TSA agents.

Common Sense on November 15, 2010 at 4:27 PM

Mike Honcho, here’s a link to the case. What it seems to say is that the liberal 9th circuit will generally uphold searches at airports; true, the case is limited to its facts.

http://openjurist.org/440/f3d/1168/united-states-v-aukai

Jimbo3 on November 15, 2010 at 4:27 PM

Ok, so you’re saying you could go to a local playground, find a small girl, and run your hand up between her legs “until you meet resistance” and that wouldn’t be a problem with anyone?

I like laughing at your comments too much to recommend you get a child molestation charge and the jail time that would occur if you tried this; but at least admit that’s exactly what would happen.

gekkobear on November 15, 2010 at 3:57 PM

The Tribune has now blocked the video. When I first watched it, I didn’t see anything that would come close to child molestation.

Jimbo3 on November 15, 2010 at 4:29 PM

Would someone please explain to me why profiling muslims and middle eastern men infringes on these peoples rights, but making the rest of us go through a “thoroughly revealing” scanner or get felt-up by a TSA screener, does not infringe upon ours? What is wrong with this government that they just don’t get this?

I hear that they are going to exclude children under 13 from this now, well what about my sweet, innocent 15 year old girl, who won’t even let her own mother see her naked! This will seriously devastate her as she is very modest and private!

This whole thing just makes my blood boil!!!

Susanboo on November 15, 2010 at 4:52 PM

TSA Oversight Meeting Wednesday. Please call the members and your congresscritters asking them to bring up the TSA abuses!

hoosiermama on November 15, 2010 at 4:57 PM

This is an administrative search. Warrants aren’t needed for them. It’s like a sobriety check for all cars at a fixed checkpoint.

I find sobriety checkpoints to be intrusive as well. One, they’re treating my like a criminal when I haven’t done anything to warrant it. Two, by targeting specific streets, they’re engaging in profiling. But that’s just me.

Why should you face an administrative search when you’re flying? Just because the government deems it necessary? If that’s our standard, then the government can enter my home in order to inspect my light bulb usage, if they deem it necessary. Or they can search my kid’s locker at school for drugs, if they deem it necessary.

hawksruleva on November 15, 2010 at 5:02 PM

What is more of an infringement of civil liberties:
1) Asking a young muslim man who paid cash for a one-way ticket some extra questions, or

2) Fondling thousands of randomly-selected passengers, and putting large naked images of thousands more up on computer screens in airports.

hawksruleva on November 15, 2010 at 5:04 PM

Napolitano: We’re doing this for your own good….

“Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.” ~CS Lewis

Venril on November 15, 2010 at 4:24 PM

Funny how the word Oppressive keeps on popping up when talking about the far-left, “progressive” Socialist Democratic party.

Chip on November 15, 2010 at 5:06 PM

Is it just me or are those flags they drape behind themselves getting bigger and bigger?

JellyToast on November 15, 2010 at 5:07 PM

What is more of an infringement of civil liberties:
1) Asking a young Muslim man who paid cash for a one-way ticket some extra questions, or
2) Fondling thousands of randomly-selected passengers, and putting large naked images of thousands more up on computer screens in airports.
hawksruleva on November 15, 2010 at 5:04 PM

For those with a shred of common sense: Answer No. 2

For those who inhabit in the Insane Leftist, bizarro world: No 1.

Ain’t that right Jimbo3?

Chip on November 15, 2010 at 5:16 PM

What is more of an infringement of civil liberties:
1) Asking a young Muslim man who paid cash for a one-way ticket some extra questions, or
2) Fondling thousands of randomly-selected passengers, and putting large naked images of thousands more up on computer screens in airports.
hawksruleva on November 15, 2010 at 5:04 PM
For those with a shred of common sense: Answer No. 2

For those who inhabit in the Insane Leftist, bizarro world: No 1.

Ain’t that right Jimbo3?

Chip on November 15, 2010 at 5:16 PM

Do you think you can identify every Muslim by physical characteristics and names? Have you ever been to Bosnia or Turkey? And how do you distinguish among and between people from Pakistan, Malaysia and Africa, as well as blacks in the US?

Jimbo3 on November 15, 2010 at 5:25 PM

OK Butch!

MCGIRV on November 15, 2010 at 5:33 PM

Do you think you can identify every Muslim by physical characteristics and names? Have you ever been to Bosnia or Turkey? And how do you distinguish among and between people from Pakistan, Malaysia and Africa, as well as blacks in the US?
Jimbo3 on November 15, 2010 at 5:25 PM

Do you think you can identify every Muslim by physical characteristics and names?

That’s a pretty good start don’t ya think?
You can also narrow it down by age, and other characteristics.

Are you if the mindset that it’s always important the people be equally miserable and that security measures be more theater than effective?

Chip on November 15, 2010 at 5:37 PM

Bend over and submit. This is for your own good!

JellyToast on November 15, 2010 at 5:39 PM

That’s a pretty good start don’t ya think?
You can also narrow it down by age, and other characteristics.

Are you if the mindset that it’s always important the people be equally miserable and that security measures be more theater than effective?

Chip on November 15, 2010 at 5:37 PM

It would probably be about as effective as a condom in typical use (85-90% effective in a year).

Jimbo3 on November 15, 2010 at 5:43 PM

I’ve said it before, I fly to other countries, i.e., Mexico, China, S Korea, for business several times a yr. I felt safer getting on the Chinese and SKorean flights because they have zero compunction of pulling out the suspicious looking folks and screening them more thoroughly. I fly out of ATL, and it is pretty much a huge cluster f8ck of people who don’t really know what the rules are day-to-day, and most who couldn’t possibly care less.

di butler on November 15, 2010 at 5:46 PM

It would probably be about as effective as a condom in typical use (85-90% effective in a year).

Jimbo3 on November 15, 2010 at 5:43 PM

What is El Al’s rate of effectiveness?

What’s more important to you: Political correctness or the lives of the people that will be lost in the next attack?

Chip on November 15, 2010 at 5:52 PM

Welcome to the United States…the world’s largest nudist colony.
BobMbx on November 15, 2010 at 2:45 PM

I see the Democrat plan. Destroy the clothing industry to wreck the US Economy and promote the weight loss industry. Make everybody walk around nude. No hiding WMDs.

I see population control as Liberal women such as Janet Napolitano are seen walking around nude. Dam# reproductive science, it allowed Medusa (the first liberal woman) to reproduce,stone statues will litter the cities!

PrettyD_Vicious on November 15, 2010 at 5:53 PM

All the pat-downs in the country wouldn’t have prevented that attack, and unless the US takes over aviation security in every airport with flights to our country, they won’t close that loop with their new scanners and patdowns

In other words, TSA is now a bunch of pervs, getting daily thrills thru pat downs. That’s all this is, because if a PETN can’t be found thru a scan, or metal detector, and the perp uses those rather than the pat down…. I think we know what the outcome may be.

Where there’s a will, there’s a way. This isn’t hurting the terrorists, it’s making all of us potential threats. Thanks big sis.

capejasmine on November 15, 2010 at 5:56 PM

It would probably be about as effective as a condom in typical use (85-90% effective in a year).

Jimbo3 on November 15, 2010 at 5:43 PM

What is El Al’s rate of effectiveness?

What’s more important to you: Political correctness or the lives of the people that will be lost in the next attack?

Chip on November 15, 2010 at 6:12 PM

I’m simply appalled by TSA, and no, I don’t want to “be patient,” either.

This is beyond the pale.

AnninCA on November 15, 2010 at 6:39 PM

It would probably be about as effective as a condom in typical use (85-90% effective in a year).

Jimbo3 on November 15, 2010 at 5:43 PM

That would probably (10-15%) be good enough, because the failures to get through would allow us to refine our tactics and would maintain public support for a level of inconvenience. The terrorist would like nothing more than for us to become complacent enough for their witless lackies to finally manage to detonate their junk.

pedestrian on November 15, 2010 at 6:50 PM

AnninCA on November 15, 2010 at 6:39 PM

At some point, we are going to have to do what works – and that means give up the PC crapola and look for the most likely suspects that may perpetrate these acts instead of randomly making everyone miserable.

We can either do this after a number of people die a horrible death, or we can do it before.

Chip on November 15, 2010 at 6:51 PM

Abolish the TSA.

MadisonConservative on November 15, 2010 at 7:18 PM

Does Janet Napolitano have to go through the naked x-ray or the intrusive pat down? I think she should set the example by showing us how painless it is.

Amy Proctor on November 15, 2010 at 7:40 PM

We ask for cooperation, patience and a commitment to vigilance in the face of a determined enemy.

Unfortunately, the enemy is us and we’re losing.

What do you suppose Obama will do if we refuse to fly and the airlines start going broke? hmmmmm

gordo on November 15, 2010 at 7:58 PM

I’ll have patience when I see Janet Napolitano’s fat ass in a naked body scanner, and when I see her breasts being groped by another fat ass TSA mama in full view of the flying public.

Ya got that Janet? Let’s see YOU getting sexually assaulted in public, honey!

mountainaires on November 15, 2010 at 7:58 PM

What do you suppose Obama will do if we refuse to fly and the airlines start going broke? hmmmmm

gordo on November 15, 2010 at 7:58 PM

Much like Bank of America, at least American Airlines won’t have to change its name once its nationalized.

Rae on November 15, 2010 at 8:33 PM

If we want a truly multilayered approach, why not follow the Israeli model, the most successful in the world at preventing terrorism in the air? Train TSA personnel to become expert

You must remember, TSA personnel are gov’t employees protected by gov’t unions – the same sort of people you get at the post office and Department of Motor Vehicles. With a few exceptions, I haven’t come across many at either place that have much potential to become expert in much of anything.

miConsevative on November 15, 2010 at 8:33 PM

They also don’t have a large hispanic population easily visually mistaken for an arab, persian, or south asian.

ernesto on November 15, 2010 at 1:32 PM

So as always, you don’t actually care about the efficacy of profiling, and you have no genuine desire to improve our security while lessening the intrusion by groups like the TSA. No, it’s all about not hassling brown dudes.

Is it tiring being a one-trick pony, ernie?

Good Solid B-Plus on November 15, 2010 at 8:36 PM

It would probably be about as effective as a condom in typical use (85-90% effective in a year).

Jimbo3 on November 15, 2010 at 5:43 PM

So you’re advocating doing it bareback as a means of protest because condoms just aren’t effective enough?

Good Solid B-Plus on November 15, 2010 at 8:37 PM

Do you want to know how to make them stop using the full body scanner? Just choose the pat down. If no one opts in for the full body scan, they will stop using it.

paulsur on November 15, 2010 at 8:40 PM

Is the TSA agent in the picture on Drudge wearing a HIJAB?

Surreal!

serendip2b on November 15, 2010 at 8:46 PM

a commitment to vigilance in the face of a determined enemy.

Two enemies, actually.

disa on November 15, 2010 at 8:55 PM

You must remember, TSA personnel are gov’t employees protected by gov’t unions – the same sort of people you get at the post office and Department of Motor Vehicles. With a few exceptions, I haven’t come across many at either place that have much potential to become expert in much of anything.
miConsevative on November 15, 2010 at 8:33 PM

Au contraire! They are experts in break time. Y’all don’t mess with break time!

ya2daup on November 15, 2010 at 9:01 PM

How many terrorists has the TSA caught? None?

Bandit5906 on November 15, 2010 at 9:14 PM

This is the incentive for the queers to leave the military and do airport colonoscopies.

Grope and change.

seven on November 15, 2010 at 9:35 PM

It would probably be about as effective as a condom in typical use (85-90% effective in a year).

Jimbo3 on November 15, 2010 at 5:43 PM
What is El Al’s rate of effectiveness?

What’s more important to you: Political correctness or the lives of the people that will be lost in the next attack?

Chip on November 15, 2010 at 5:52 PM

I’m for continuing the existing screening process. You’re not.

Jimbo3 on November 15, 2010 at 9:36 PM

We could avoid all this with profiling, but that would be “wrong.”

You’d think we’d have learned something from the Israelis by now.

Why do we keep giving important jobs to the federal government? How about we subject the Supreme Court justices to this treatment? I guess getting on an airplane now constitutes exigent circumstances.

Creeping government intrusion is now called “layering.”

flataffect on November 15, 2010 at 10:33 PM

It’s time for Genital Napolitano to go!

JohnnyMojo on November 15, 2010 at 11:01 PM

We ask for cooperation, patience and a commitment to vigilance in the face of a determined enemy.

Wait a minute! Is she talking about muslim extremists as the enemy, who have bombed more buildings than we can count, as well as flew airplanes into buildings, on our own soil? Or is she referring to Christians, who tell people about the Gospel, as the enemy?
With her it is hard to tell. But based on her boss’s genuflecting to every muslim in sight while purposely ignoring any speech or day with even a hint of Christianity, I’d say it is the latter.

Sterling Holobyte on November 15, 2010 at 11:17 PM

Once a plane blows up in the sky after its passengers have been screened using these new ‘tools’, all hell is going to break loose. The current approach being used to find potential terrorists is stupid, totalitarian, and most likely ineffective.

zoyclem on November 16, 2010 at 7:10 AM

NEXT: Random proctoscopy!!!!

(It’s for your own good…War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength…etc…)

landlines on November 16, 2010 at 10:09 AM

Do you want to know how to make them stop using the full body scanner? Just choose the pat down. If no one opts in for the full body scan, they will stop using it.

paulsur on November 15, 2010 at 8:40 PM

My favorite suggestion came from a Rush Limbaugh caller: ask for a pat-down by the opposite sex!!! You might also consider adding your own sound effects in response to the pat-down: like the famous scene in “When Harry Met Sally”!

(…If they object, you could tell them that you’re gay and you don’t want a same-sex TSA employee ‘coming on’ to you: that’ll make their heads explode!!!)

landlines on November 16, 2010 at 10:16 AM

I swear they said Bush made up this sh*t about terrorists coming after us.

RalphyBoy on November 16, 2010 at 10:54 AM

Let’s see Big Sis put her money where her big mouth is, and go through a scanner or a groping to prove that it’s not invasive. Another hypocrite, no idea, progressive, liberal.

ultracon on November 16, 2010 at 3:36 PM

I’ll have patience when I see Janet Napolitano’s fat ass in a naked body scanner, and when I see her breasts being groped by another fat ass TSA mama in full view of the flying public.

mountainaires on November 15, 2010 at 7:58 PM

That is a scary thought.

Susanboo on November 16, 2010 at 4:20 PM

She is a liar. If she or the president cared about security, they would profile.

proconstitution on November 16, 2010 at 10:45 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3