Intrusive Patdowns Are NOT OK – Whether It’s the TSA or the Local Police

As the Thanksgiving travel season heats up (hopefully literally – I prefer not to have an icy drive to the Pacific Northwest tomorrow), there’s increasing public awareness and discussion of the sexual assaults being routinely performed on Californians as well as the risky and unsafe backscatter machines. More and more Americans are growing uncomfortable with these intrusive procedures, which appear to be an obvious violation of the 4th Amendment.

However, we’re starting to see a backlash to the backlash, as liberals line up to defend the security state. By doing so, they not only defend what are truly indefensible practices by the TSA – they also are reinforcing decades of similar practices routinely conducted by local law enforcement against people of color.

The progressive response to the TSA crisis should be a strong reassertion of the 4th Amendment’s protections against unreasonable search and seizure. Unfortunately, people like Kevin Drum see nothing wrong at all with the massive violation of our Constitutional rights by the TSA:

But what about our civil liberties? Maybe you think that even if TSA’s procedures are slightly useful, they aren’t useful enough to justify all the intrusion. Instead, we should just accept the risk of an occasional plane falling out of the sky. Think again: if a plane comes down, you can just kiss your civil liberties goodbye. Today’s TSA procedures will seem positively genial compared to what takes their place with the full and eager support of the American public. Given that reality, if you’re really worried about civil liberties you should welcome nearly anything legal that protects air travel from explosives, even the things that are really annoying and only modestly useful.

In other words, Kevin Drum is saying that because a terrorist attack might be successful, and because that success might eliminate ALL our civil liberties, we should give up most of our civil liberties, and allow children to be sexually molested by TSA agents or for cancer survivors to risk their lives by going through the pornoscanners.

Kevin Drum has written some pretty ridiculous stuff over the years, but this takes the cake. Drum basically argues the American people have no ability to stand up for their rights, and that in fact we should just give up our rights in order to be safe. Because of the possibility that a terrorist attack might be successful, our rights to be safe and secure from unreasonable searches should be tossed out the window.

This is exactly the same argument used by the TSA itself to justify these procedures. Importantly, it is also the exact same argument that was used by police and “law and order” politicians to defend the constant erosion of 4th Amendment rights during the war on drugs over the last 30 years.

People of color are routinely stopped without justification and subject to intrusive patdowns. When they went to court to assert their 4th Amendment rights, the courts eroded those rights and upheld the unfair treatment. White Americans never complained about this, because they believed their privilege would save them.

It didn’t. Well before the pornoscanners and sexual assaults at airports began, whites were discovering that by throwing the rights of people of color to the wolves, they just set themselves up to be victimized. I learned this the hard way in 2002, when police destroyed my apartment in the mistaken belief that a bank robber had taken refuge inside. The apartment was empty the entire time, and the cops never acknowledged their mistake, even after the FBI agent on scene said he agreed the cops had no justification to storm the apartment.

But because most whites still believed their privilege immunized them from the abuses of law enforcement, they continued to support the erosion of their rights. Finally, the TSA has gone too far, but it’s difficult to walk back, especially when people like Kevin Drum take to the blogs to defend the TSA’s practices.

Other progressives have taken issue with the “we need this to be safe” argument, such as Digby:

That’s why this is security theater. We are chasing phantoms by pretending that if we stop people from carrying a bottle of shampoo on an airplane that we are safe. If you are so scared of terrorism that you’re willing to throw logic out the window and subject yourself to ever more irrational safety procedures for no good reason, you’d better think twice about ever leaving your house. That, of course, is exactly the point of terrorism. And authoritarian police states.

Others such as Melissa McEwan took issue with the blithe dismissal of concerns about sexual assault at the hands of the TSA:

there are practical and valid objections being made by people with disabilities, parents of children with disabilities, and survivors of sexual violence….Those millions of people are not just potentially “inconvenienced.” Being triggered does not mean feeling hassled or being annoyed or having your feelings hurt or getting upset. It means experiencing a physical and/or emotional response to a survived trauma, having a significantly mood-altering bout of anxiety. Someone who is triggered may experience anything from a brief moment of dizziness, to a shortness of breath and a racing pulse, to a full-blown panic attack.

This seems to have convinced Drum that the “enhanced” patdowns are a problem:

I very much doubt that the “enhanced” versions are justifiable. So unless I hear a pretty good argument from TSA about this, I’d be in favor of returning to the old patdown standards and trying to eliminate some of the pain Melissa is talking about.

That’s good, but Drum does realize that the sexual assaults are happening to deter people from opting out of the unsafe pornoscanners, right? And that those scanners are no less a violation of the 4th Amendment than having a TSA agent fondle your junk?

I’m not sure he does. Drum’s basic argument is the same as those that have been used to defend the erosion of the rights of many Americans – often of color – who see a depressing familiarity in just how easily some white liberals will defend the erosion of rights and personal security.

The solution here should NOT be to just stop the TSA searches. White America has finally learned that their government believes it has the power and the justification to do unspeakable things to them in the name of security. Our job as progressives is to use their newfound consciousness to mobilize them to support restoration of the 4th Amendment for all Americans, not just for whites at an airport but also for an African American in Oakland, or a Latino in southern Orange County.

7 thoughts on “Intrusive Patdowns Are NOT OK – Whether It’s the TSA or the Local Police”

  1. Getting on a plane is a choice.  Going through the TSA screen is a choice.  If you find it intrusive, pornographic, or you think the death rays will kill you, take the bus.  

    The 9:30 am Southwest to Burbank is not your personal vehicle.  Its a shared mass transit option and many people on that plane are very happy that the TSA is patting people and scanning people before they get on the plane.

    Personally I’d prefer it if constitutional crusaders kept their powder dry and in reserve for cases when rights are being unjustly denied or abridged against the wishes of innocent citizens instead of cases like this where there are clear options and you only have to subject yourself to the procedure if you make an affirmative decision to do so.

    IMHO Crying wolf, “child molestors”, “pornographers”, “KILLERS!!!” like you are doing does a disservice to true constitutional vigilance.

  2. The civil rights issue is the real point, as you say, Robert.  But somehow what makes me want to scream is that all this aggro is for nothing.  There are gaps in the security process big enough for several bombs.  e.g.:

    –baggage

    –body cavities

    –the unscreened TSA agents themselves.

    The body scanners likely would not have found the PETN on the underpants bomber.

    So, they’re pretty much useless.  They’re also made by a company in which Michael Chertoff owns stock (which he bought right around the time his Federal job ended and when he was pushing for these things).  There are better scanners in use at, eg, Amsterdam Schiphol with no radiation issues that visualize suspicious objects on a generic 3D figure diagram.  Chertoff does not own stock in that company.

    As for the health issues of backscatter radiation: one of the scientists who signed off on these machines as safe in 2003 is horrified they’re being used on the general population.  Epidemiologically, the risks of a one in a million event are tiny if the population in question is 100.  If it’s 100,000,000, it means 100 people are done for purely so the TSA can feel good about some security theater.

    The radiation involved is minute, but it’s concentrated at the skin.  Its danger to vulnerable populations is unknown.  That group would include, for instance, people with precancerous moles.

    And as for the body searches, it was kind of funny to watch the backlash against the scanners build, and then hear the TSA tell us, “Do it our way, or we’ll make you wish you had.”  It was so obviously a punitive measure with no security reason at all.

  3. I saw a video yesterday of a guy who claimed he got through the TSA line with two 12-inch razors in his computer bag. Considering the poor record shown during tests of airport security, I don’t doubt it.

    But even before 9/11, when I was flying to LA with my grown son, he got stopped and searched. He shrugged it off, saying, “Oh it always happens to me. I’m a young man with an earring and long hair. I guess I fit the profile for drug dealers.” Later, going to Europe, I got stopped for a special search just by random nose count. They went through everything, including the pages of the paperback book I bought at the airport, my money, and my underwear. In the meantime, I was forced to sit in a cold space with nothing on but the sleeveless camisole I’d been wearing under my light jacket. Finally, with my teeth chattering, I asked if I could put my clothes back on. The little boy sitting near me as they searched his Sponge Bob Square Pants backpack just seemed scared and bewildered.

    So, as a friend of mine, a tiny woman who used to travel often for work, says, “If it makes you feel safer that I have to take my shoes off, then I guess that’s okay. But I really don’t see why you would.” I thought of her when a screener in New York demanded I remove the leather flip flops I was wearing. The soles can’t be 1/4″ thick. I couldn’t blow up the soles of my feet with what I could fit in there. I just looked at him and said, “Really? You’ve got to be kidding.” These days, that would get me barred from flying I guess. Or fined $11,000.

    And I have to wonder if any of it makes us any safer. Or if it’s just an expensive, inconvenient, uncomfortable, embarrassing, and possibly unconstitutional delusion of safety.

  4. I sometimes envision Al Qaeda sitting around trying to figure out what they could do to best mess with our heads.  “I got it,” says one.  “We’ll put some kind of flash powder in one of our guys’ underpants!  They’ll be strip-searching everyone in no time!”  They have a good laugh over that, then call in one of their suicide bombers and describe his mission, doing their best to keep a straight face, lest they disillusion him.

    At the other end of the world some months later, the head of Homeland Security makes a speech about the Really Expensive x-ray scanners we’re unfortunately going to have to buy, doing his best to keep a straight face…

Comments are closed.