The problem with public policy

A Law professor from Indiana University, Fred Cate, testified before Congress last month about the scanners. While his argument is factual, the effectiveness of the scanners is purely a peripheral issue (but one that Rep Mica no doubt wants to hear). I am surprised this is coming from a lawyer, but then, law may be all about pragmatism and safe policy, not - oh, I don't know - based on written law and the classical liberal principles that this nation is based on.

Also testifying, as I noted earlier, were Alaska State Rep Cissna, who just doesn't like the pat-down, but doesn't see the TSA in general as perpetrating rights violations.


Dr. David Brenner from Columbia lambasts the health risks of the backscatter, while not acknowledging any possible risks for the millimeter wave scanners. 

Mica is annoying

Rep John Mica (R-FL) is a corrupt politician who is jumping on the anti-TSA backlash for his own gain. While he has some good rhetoric, such as in the following exchange:

"The equipment is flawed and can be subverted," House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica (R-Fla.) said. "Our staff has subverted it. (TSA Administrator) Pistole said 'GAO is very clever.' Well what the hell does he think a terrorist is?"

he ultimately does not care to address or understand the fundamental problems. Check out this ignorance on display:

Additionally, it is not very hard to know where to place contraband you do not want to be found in the event of a TSA pat-down, Mica said.

"Most folks know they're not going to touch your junk," Mica said.

On the other hand, while I don't think Rep Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) is radical enough, he was sounding the alarms on the scanners long before the public was aware of the issue, and he has not let up.

The panel appeared unconvinced. Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) compared the pat-downs now being used as part of airport security screening measures to sexual assault.

"There are many of us who believe this would be deemed a sexual assault on a person," he said.

 Unlike Mica, who thinks there is no sexual assault and that private contractors using identical methods are somehow less offensive, Chaffetz realizes that this is a serious assault on individual liberty and tantamount to criminal behavior.

Nothing coming of Mica's fascist dream

Pistole is drawing a line in the sand, protecting his bureaucracy and the labor unions. He has slowly granted approval for "private" security at additional airports since Rep Mica started promoting this corporatist "opt-out." But, now Pistole has refused one airport's request and is halting the process of allowing future opt-outs. I don't know how this will play out long term, but, either way, I won't fly! The feds need to be out of airport security entirely, or our rights will never be respected.

Being felt-up by private security

As I've pointed out before, Rep Mica's private security "opt-out" proposals are not a step towards freer skies. SFO (San Francisco) is one of the airports that has had a private contractor doing the TSA's bidding for years. It is also one of the first airports to have installed scanners. So, how does the "customer service" of these private screeners compare with the TSA's own goons?

A friend flew through SFO over the holidays. She was selected for the scanner, and opted for the so-called pat down. She tells me this is no ordinary pat-down (as we've been hearing from numerous passengers who have gone through the same). Her main example of the incredible intrusion on personal privacy is that the screener put her gloved hands in her underwear. She also notes that the screener did not change her gloves before or after doing so.

There is no difference between the so-called privatized security that Mica proposes and TSA security theater, except that tax dollars enrich a government contractor. What we need is actual private airline security, paid for and provided by the airlines.

Mica is worse than I thought

Rep John Mica, who picked up on the public backlash over the TSA scan 'n grope policies by recommending that airports "opt out" of security, is (not surprisingly) a typical politician. I opposed his suggestion, since it is only substituting fascism for socialism. The "opting out" means that airports can hire a TSA-approved contractor that follows TSA guidelines (including the scans and gropes). Just what we need - more efficient violations of our rights!

Well, it turns out that Mica's interests are most likely with the special interests:

Covenant, based in Mica's home district in northeastern coastal Florida, has airport screening contracts in Sioux Falls, S.D., Tupelo, Miss., and seven small airports in northern and eastern Montana. Its deal at San Francisco International is by far its largest. Covenant employs nearly 1,100 people in the Bay Area, who make up nearly all of its 1,150 workers. The last four-year contract, from 2006 to 2010, totaled $314 million.

Don't forget - this is the same person who drafted the legislation that created both the TSA and the airport "opt out" rules. We won't be safe until this agency is disbanded and airports/airlines are given full discretion over their security.