Oh No! The TSA Wants to "Touch Your Junk" and Make Babies Cry

Oh no! Airport security scanners make babies cry! San Diegans are in an uproar because they refuse to have the TSA touch their "junk".

Surely by now you've have seen all the coverage about two viral videos which have created quite a buzz.  The first video shows a San Diego man refusing to go through the full body scan machines. (See Embedded
AP video)  As TSA procedure dictates, a refusal on the body scans will result in a mandatory pat down, up close and personal, by a TSA agent.  The man also somewhat objected to the pat down with the now famous line, "don't touch my junk".

There is also another viral video of a poor little three year old toddler who had to undergo a pat down by a TSA agent after the little girl set off a metal detector twice. Two videos like this and the debate on airport security has resurfaced.  Fox News, MSNBC and CNN have been talking about it on almost every program they aired yesterday.  I have to admit, that on this subject, I'm content that the media is providing extensive commentary.

Full Body Scan in progress.

There are many different arguments on this one, but I'll filter it down to just a few.  The first argument, is one sponsored by Ann Coulter on The Factor today, claims that the TSA has gone too far with their security scans.  Coulter argued that the intrusive body scanners would not have detected to the explosive materials used during the December 2009 attempt to bring down a Northwest Airliner en-route from Amsterdam. Therefore, the body scans really are more of a nuisance than an effective method for protecting passengers.


The second argument states that types of scanning methods currently being implemented are necessary to protect the lives of American citizens. Many folks agree that in the name of safety we may all have to sacrifice some convenience. Today, the TSA Chief John Pistole defended his agency's tactics before the Senate Committee on Commerce by affirming that the TSA is "using technology and protocols to stay ahead of the threat and keep you safe." Who can argue with that statement?

The TSA and John Pistole have been keelhauled by politicians and the media as of late for their earnest attempts at ensuring our own safety.  The very same politicians who demanded more security and almost unanimously supported the formation of the TSA after the 9/11 terror attacks. Once again, political opportunities to score brownie points with constituents instead of trying to resolve real issues.

I'm not implying that the TSA has come up with the best method to provide for our security or that the general public's concern about their right to privacy is a merit-less claim. In fact, some journalist have raised legitimate concerns about the perceived effectiveness of these methods and even the possible health risks posed by those body scanners. All of these are concerns that I believe should be up for debate and analysis.  However, I also believe that we should also review the accomplishments that these enhanced security measures have achieved over the last nine years.

We should ask ourselves, since September 11th  Have we had any further terror attacks on our airways on flights that originated domestically? Note: that the Richard Reid Shoe Bomb incident and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's Underwear bomb incident both occurred on flights which originated overseas. Are there longer lines and more inconvenience when we travel? The ultimate question is:  Are our airways safer? The answer of course is yes.

My point is that the focus of the dialogue needs to be on making the process for ensuring our safety more efficient and safer instead of a method to gain political advantage or face time with the media. Whether that means privatizing most TSA functions like John Stossel suggests or finding  more effective and less intrusive technology like Coulter blabs about. All these things should be considered, but let us not blast the guys tasked with protecting us, especially when, thus far, they have done a fairly decent job.