TSA Backlash Week: Kevin Drum's Meh

Kevin Drum can figure out what the big deal is: "In fact, I think it's a pretty good sign of a country gone insane that this — TSA screeners occasionally viewing a vague outline of your body — is what's finally driven everyone over the edge. Shoes, laptops, liquids, wands, special screenings, warrantless wiretaps, you name it. They annoyed us, but we accepted them. But this! Finally left and right can unite in outrage over government run wild."

I take his point: We've been headed to this moment for awhile. But there's an element of political snobbery when you roll your eyes at people protesting the invasion of their privacy because they didn't protest soon enough for your tastes. Rather than see this as an opportunity, perhaps, to re-open the discussion about what government is doing to us in the name of security, Drum becomes the political version of a hipster who liked Arcade Fire's older stuff. I respect and rely on his work, but this rant is a little silly.

TSA Backlash Week: The LA Times Thinks Anal Probing Would Be Going Too Far

In a provocatively titled editorial, "Shut up and be scanned," the LA Times asserts that body scans and pat downs aren't too intrusive at the nation's airports. Luckily, the paper does offer an answer to the question, "How far is too far." Unfortunately, the answer is: "Pretty far":

"In reaction to the new high-tech scans, suicide bombers may well switch to buses and trains rather than airplanes, or airborne killers might resort to inserting explosives into their body cavities, where the machines can't detect them. So, it's reasonable to ask, what's next? Anal probes at the airport? It's safe to say that if the TSA gets to that point, it will have crossed the line, and it might be time to explore less invasive methods."

I think that's a joke. Is that a joke? I ... can't really tell.

Dunno. Seems to me that reasonable people can agree that a reasonable level of privacy starts somewhere farther from your person than your colon. But I'm not certain the LA Times is being reasonable here. The headline offers up the peevish counterresponse of those who are so afraid of terrorism they're willing to give up just about any level of personal freedom to avoid it. Anal probes? That might be too far, but go ahead and look at me naked. JUST SHUT UP AND BE SCANNED! And there's no point in such cases suggesting to such folks that their chances of dying at the hands of terrorism is roughly the same as being struck by lightning in a car crash. The fear is already there, embedded like a particularly persistent tick. One hates to use a cliche, but it's true: In such cases, the terrorists really have won.

A Small Word In Defense of George W. Bush

Ruth Marcus, I think, largely has this right: "In short, Bush inherited a budget in healthy shape. He left it in tatters. The faltering economy played a supporting role, but the chief factors were of Bush's making: his tax cuts, his wars, his prescription drug bill. Without these, the country would have been running surpluses during his tenure. The wars will wind down, but the price of the tax cuts and prescription drug bill will climb even higher over the next decade."

The only thing I'd say in even mild defense of Bush is to suggest that the formulation "his wars" is only half right. Iraq was a terrible blunder, but the decision to go to war in Afghanistan was a rational reaction to the 9/11 attack; there's something off-note about calling it his war when Americans were all on board, and in fact probably would have chased from office any president who didn't respond to the attack in similar fashion. Marcus is right, though, that Bush is the first president to put a war on the credit card. His attempts to evade responsibility for the country's budget problems is very far from convincing.

We Had To Destroy The Village In Order To Save It

NATO is demolishing entire Afghan villages because some houses have been booby-trapped by the Taliban:

"While it has widespread support among Afghan officials and even some residents, and has been accompanied by an equally determined effort to hand out cash compensation to homeowners, other local people have complained that the demolitions have gone far beyond what is necessary.

It would also seem to run counter to Gen. David H. Petraeus’s counterinsurgency strategy, which calls for respecting property as well as lives, and to run up against recent calls by President Hamid Karzai for foreign forces to lower their profile and avoid tactics that alienate Afghan civilians. There have been no reports of civilians casualties from the demolitions."

Counterinsurgency is about protecting and winning the support of the population. Wonder how well home demolitions will achieve that goal?

TSA Backlash Week: The Wall Street Journal Weighs In

It's probably worth noting at this point that TSA Backlash Week isn't a conservative or liberal phenomenon. It's got just about everybody angry, with nobody outside the TSA itself offering much in the way of a vigorous defense of body scanners and patdown. So it's interesting to note the Wall Street Journal is publishing a critique of the TSA, a piece from Wired's Noah Schachtman.

Money quote: "But the larger question is whether the TSA's tech-centric approach to security makes any sense at all. Even the most modest of us would probably agree to a brief flash of quasi-nudity if it would really ensure a safe flight. That's not the deal the TSA is offering. Instead, the agency is asking for Rolando Negrin-style revelations in exchange for incremental, uncertain security improvements against particular kinds of concealed weapons."

TSA Backlash Week: The Senate Hearing

"The Senate Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security will hold a Transportation Security Administration Oversight Hearing tomorrow." Josh Rosenau has details.

TSA Backlash Week: Resources, And A Reminder From Penn Jillette

My friend Robb sends along links to a couple of websites helping build resistance to the TSA's intrusive security procedures:

FLY WITH DIGNITY: "Wre an organization seeking advocacy and recognition of the TSA’s and DHS’s actions against our privacy and right to refuse unwarranted search." Pictures seem a little overwrought, but I otherwise agree with them. Sign the petition!

NATIONAL OPT-OUT DAY: "The goal of National Opt Out Day is to send a message to our lawmakers that we demand change. We have a right to privacy and buying a plane ticket should not mean that we're guilty until proven innocent. This day is needed because many people do not understand what they consent to when choosing to fly."

Robb also sends along this 2002 post from Penn Jillette, which reminds us we've been building to this point for a long time:

Last Thursday I was flying to LA on the Midnight flight. I went through security my usual sour stuff. I beeped, of course, and was shuttled to the "toss-em" line. A security guy came over. I assumed the position. I had a button up shirt on that was untucked. He reached around while he was behind me and grabbed around my front pocket. I guess he was going for my flashlight, but the area could have loosely been called "crotch." I said, "You have to ask me before you touch me or it's assault."

He said, "Once you cross that line, I can do whatever I want."

I said that wasn't true. I say that I have the option of saying no and not flying. He said, "Are you going to let me search you, or do I just throw you out?"

I said, "Finish up, and then call the police please."

When he was finished with my shoes, he said, "Okay, you can go."

I said, "I'd like to see your supervisor and I'd like LVPD to come here as well. I was assaulted by you."

He said, "You're free to go, there's no problem."

I said, "I have a problem, please send someone over."

It goes from there. Most of us haven't expressed Jillette's level of outrage about these procedures, which is why we've arrived at this point. It's TSA Backlash Week!