TSA Policies: Threat to Our Liberty and Security

“Don’t touch my junk” is the whimsical response exclaimed by a man who refused the invasive pat-down of his genitals by a Transportation Security Administration officer. Humor aside, the new TSA policy regarding airport security is meant to “ensure the safety of you the traveling public….efficiently, courteously and professionally.” The method of achieving this rather serious goal of security is through x-ray imaging or pat-downs. There have been numerous blogs about the health risks involved with frequent body-scans, the notion that a pat-down is molestation, and the inefficiency of these procedures. These are superficial concerns that are “debated” about repeatedly in popular media outlets. The deeper issue is subverting the liberty and dignity of people who once claimed that they had been endowed by the Creator with, “…certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The new policies do not meet the stated goal of ensuring safety, but encroach upon one of our fundamental liberties, privacy. The Fourth Amendment in the Constitution makes it explicit that the right of privacy is necessary in a democratic society. It reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It is evident that there are procedures to be followed whenever the government needs to intrude our “persons, houses, papers, and effects.” In the case of TSA policies, advocates will argue that there is probable cause since the previous security procedures were ineffective because of Abdulmutallab’s alleged Christmas attack. This is a point that TSA policy advocates and critics will agree on. However, the disagreement remains over the methods, which are “unreasonable.”

The British courts follow the “Wednesbury unreasonableness” test to decide whether a governmental policy is reasonable. It gives government expansive authority in implementing policies by asking if that policy is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would decide on that policy. In regards to the TSA policies, it is impossible to meet this criterion of unreasonableness. By concluding that the procedures are “unreasonable”, we would inevitably be calling TSA an “unreasonable” or irrational authority. Before we tread to this extreme, we have to remember that we live in America, so the conclusion that the TSA policies are “unreasonable” is based on more generally accepted values.

The values of freedom and liberty that are often spoken of in this nation are precisely what the TSA policies are subverting in a climate of fear. Rather than basing a policy on the principles of freedom, TSA is basing it on extreme fear. For example, when we analyze the number of alleged cases of terrorism to the population, we see a great disparity. TSA, obviously, ignored the issue of proportionality when it comes to such stringent policies, so it is definitely “unreasonable.” Now, the other blatant fact is that we do not have a choice for a civilized method of search. We either have to be seen nude or molested. This is not much of a choice, unless of course, you believe a civilized society can be protected through uncivil procedures.

Above all, as citizens we have to be concerned about such violations of our freedoms by our government, because they are reminiscent of regimes such as the Taliban. Actually, even the Taliban, in their attempts at security were not nearly as violating as the TSA security measures. The TSA measures are dehumanizing not only because of the physical search, but because of the psychological damage that it leaves upon every traveler’s mind, including children. By allowing such policies to be normalized, we are normalizing fear since the basis of such policies is fear. Fear is effective for the short-run, but to ensure long-term security and stability within this nation, we need love. The renowned poet Rumi has said, “Today, like every other day, we wake up empty and frightened. Why do you stay in prison when the door is so wide open? Move outside the tangle of fear-thinking.”

Body Scanners Coming to an Airport Near You

O’Hare International Airport recently added full-body scanners to its security system in the hopes of preventing any future attacks on airlines. It is believed that the scanners will improve security because of their ability to show hidden objects on the body like plastic or chemical explosives and non-metallic weapons. Paid for with money from President Obama’s 2009 stimulus plan, each scanner costs between $130,000 and $190,000. So far, over 20 U.S. airports have received these scanners and many, many more are on their way to airports across the nation. While these body scanners have been available for years, deployment has been slowed because of privacy objections which center on the fact that the scanners use low dose X-rays that can see through passenger’s clothing and reveal the size and shape of the entirety of one’s body with clarity. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has denounced the machines as a “virtual strip search.”

Usage of the scanners varies at different airports. Some airports are using the scanners as their primary form of security, while others are using them as a secondary search mechanism, e.g. if someone fails a metal detector test or is randomly selected for the scan. Most airports with scanners, however, are moving toward using them as their primary form of security.

According to the TSA (Transportation Security Administration), once scanned, images are sent to a remote location where a technician, who cannot see the passenger, examines the image and communicates, via wireless headset, with the officer assisting the passenger. To protect passenger privacy, millimeter wave technology blurs all facial features and deletes images from the system after the passenger has been cleared. Additionally, officers evaluating the scanner images are not allowed to have cameras, cell phones, or other photo-enabled devices in the resolution room that could be used to create a copy of the scan. If a passenger chooses not to go through the body scanner for whatever reason, they will “receive an equal level of screening, including a physical pat-down”. If this is the case, the TSA is equating a physical pat-down with a piece of equipment costing the equivalent of a house. This phrase alone exposes the TSA's blatantly irresponsible use of taxpayer dollars for the sake of a little more efficiency in airport security lines.

Despite these precautions, many are still weary that the scanners violate their rights. Numerous Muslim groups along with members of other Jewish and Christian faiths have expressed concern over whether or not the scanners violate their beliefs on modesty. In a Fox News interview, CAIR-Chicago Executive Director Ahmad Rehab reiterated this idea by noting that the scanners “violate religious and privacy rights of Americans.”

One such incident of a privacy violation took place at London’s Heathrow Airport. There, a male security employee made lewd comments to a female colleague after she passed through a body scanner. This incident highlights some of the moral and ethical concerns over the scanners expressed by opponents. Although a harassment warning has been issued to the perpetrator, he retains his job despite a clear abuse of his position and overt disregard for the privacy of another human being.

Additionally, concerns over the safety of these machines have been stifled by scanner manufacturers, who insist that the machines are safe. However, a study conducted at Los Alamos National Laboratory found that the energy particles used to generate the nude image of the body can have a negative effect on intricate molecular processes involved in gene expression and DNA replication in the body. Without any clinical trials performed by a third party or FDA approval on these machines, there is currently no way to demonstrate that the scanners are safe for multiple use over time.

At a time when Muslims are already under so much scrutiny, they don’t want to have to make a choice between their religion and national security. Especially since there is doubt among experts, including the British Government, as to whether or not the Christmas Day bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, or others like him carrying low-density items would have been stopped by one of these scanners, it is important to really understand their effectiveness in preventing another attack before using it as a primary means of security. Already, a Muslim woman was banned from a flight to Pakistan after refusing to undergo a full-body scan at Manchester Airport in the U.K.

If history tells us anything, it is that terrorists have no problem adapting to new security measures, especially when they know what security officials are looking for. What if the next bomber with concealed explosives opts for a pat-down and is let through security? What will the next step be? Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office says it best when she notes that “There is no one measure or magic solution to keeping us safe, and while our government should strive for the best security possible, it must adhere to respect Americans’ civil liberties." That being said, should we as Americans in a time of heightened economic and national security tension, rely so heavily on such a financially extravagant and easily avoidable means of keeping our skies safe?

For a full list of airports that are currently using full-body scanners and for more information on the scanners, please visit the TSA website.