Conbustible

Commentary

081012-tsa-lg

A “silent” majority sounds off about airport security

Intrusive airport searches are just fine with a majority of air travelers. They also think the TSA has singlehandedly prevented a 9/11 repeat, and that critics of the agency’s current practices are nothing more than “anxious advocates.”

At least that’s the impression you might be left with if you read a recent editorial in the Chicago Tribune and other surprisingly favorable mentions in the mainstream media. Even amid the sequestration slowdowns, we’re big fans of the TSA.

Connect the dots, and the conclusion is inescapable: There’s a silent majority of Americans who really do believe the TSA is the “gold standard” in aviation security, as the TSA’s John Pistole recently proclaimed. We’re safer today because of the TSA, and out in flyover country we feel nothing but gratitude toward America’s airport sentries, who are the last line of defense against terrorism.

But if you’re a regular reader of this feature, which tries to hold the TSA accountable to the taxpayers who fund it, you might find those revelations troubling. Because if they are true, then most criticism of the agency assigned to protect America’s transportation systems is undeserved, unfair — even unpatriotic.

The complaints about the scans, the pat-downs and the alleged civil rights violations are nothing more than whining by a small group of protesters. After all, hasn’t the TSA protected us?

Can America really feel this way?

But a closer reading of the editorial and a review of a few often forgotten facts suggests otherwise.

Complaining about an “inconvenience”

The Tribune commentary starts with the premise that the “inconvenience” of intrusive searches is “an infinitesimal price to pay for the relentlessly safe flights they enjoy.” But that’s a false premise, say critics.

If you’ve just been given an aggressive pat-down because of a titanium screw in your leg or because you prefer not to undergo a full-body scan, you might beg to differ. It’s more than “inconvenient” when a TSA agent repeatedly knocks your genitals, as the screener at Washington’s Reagan Airport recently did to me. The blueshirt just seemed to be in a hurry, and he clearly didn’t hold an “opt-out” passenger like me in high regard. But the pat-down hurt all the same. I’m not alone.

Also, to credit airport security for the airline industry’s safety record is something of a stretch.

Planes aren’t falling out of the sky because airlines, under the close supervision of the FAA, are sticklers about safety.

The story also labels critics as “complainers” for having the impertinence to take the TSA to task for deploying technology that hasn’t been adequately tested and that shoots x-rays at passengers in order to see through their clothes. It’s a funny way to describe agency-watchers who, as it turned out, had a perfectly legitimate point, since the government agreed with them when itdecommissioned the backscatter scanners.

Print this entry

Read More... Pages: 1 2

Tagged , ,

Share this article:

Christopher Elliott

About Christopher Elliott

Christopher Elliott is a consumer advocate and syndicated columnist who has covered the TSA since its inception. Christopher writes for the TSA News.

View all posts by Christopher Elliott →

Related Posts

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Featured Video
Subscribe
*  Email:
 First:
 Last:
 Zip:
*  Yes, I agree to the terms and privacy policy

Like Us On Facebook
Top Posts & Pages
Follow me on Twitter
About Conbustible.com

We are tired of watching our government give us the cold shoulder. We think you are too. That's why Conbustible.com is here. Daily we work to give you the real news – real news you can influence directly. Whether through email, fax, or phone call, use Conbustible.com to put the slow burn on those politicians that have forgotten one crucial part of their job description - they work for us. 
Petitions

Under current law, "jail breaking" your cell phone is a felony ...

A four-page amendment to the Postal Reform Act, the Paul amendment would end the bad federal policy