The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) gropes us and rifles our belongings at airports while robbing us of $7 billion annually. It spends some of that loot on propaganda, whether press releases that the corporate media recycles lest reporters waste time researching and writing their own stories, or a website. The latter featured a column called “Myth Busters” from June 2007 through March 2009. In it, the TSA’s spinners tried to refute whatever bits of truth had escaped the agency’s black hole.

Let’s turn the TSA’s tradition on its head by busting a couple of genuine myths with the truth. The TSA has never endorsed either of these falsehoods, but they are perennially popular among passengers who clamor for something, anything, to rescue them from the agency’s abuse. And they have reappeared with a vengeance after Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s attempt to immolate himself during a flight on Christmas Day. 

The first: profiling can protect us. Proponents argue that “since Muslims took down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, every attack on a commercial airliner has been committed by foreign-born Muslim men with the same hair color, eye color and skin color.” That makes securing aviation very simple: the Feds should “search Muslims” rather than “[harass] infinitely compliant Americans.”

Even a fatuous neocon can be half right. Americans are indeed infinitely compliant, not only at checkpoints but anywhere the jackboots of the police state tread on them. They’re a heck of a lot easier to intimidate than Al Qaeda’s warriors would be, for all the good that does – further reason to abolish the TSA. Meanwhile, siccing it on Muslims protects nothing other than screeners’ jobs.

It isn’t hard to see why. Once the TSA announces this new policy in a press release (“To Enhance Passenger Air-Safety Protection, TSA to Focus Screening Protocol on Male Individuals of Specific Ethnic Background Only”) its lapdogs in the media will print the bilge, as usual. And an alerted Al Qaeda (which, in the neocon’s extremely limited view of the world, is responsible for all crimes an established government disclaims) will immediately recruit Japanese men or Irish women – witting or otherwise.

This isn’t mere theory. In 1972, “the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine said they had recruited…gunmen from the Japanese Red Army” who “opened fire on crowds at Lod International Airport in Tel Aviv, Israel, killing 26 people and injuring dozens more.” And in 1986, Nezar Hindawi conned a chambermaid living in London into believing he would marry her at his family’s home in Israel. He packed a bomb in her suitcase before kissing her good-bye. British cops found the explosives and arrested her. (They ultimately released this heartbreaking and innocent pawn.)

Empowering the State to search some people enlarges and strengthens it enough to search all. Which it in fact will because it gains enormous power: not only does it find and confiscate contraband while punishing smugglers, it cows citizens who fear the humiliation of a search. No government will ever rest content hassling a fraction of the population when it can intimidate everyone. Encouraging the Feds to frisk some folks empowers them to molest us all.

Watch this play out as the TSA takes the first step in profiling foreigners. It “has directed airlines to give full-body pat-downs to U.S.-bound travelers from Yemen, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and 11 other countries,” all but one of which are mostly Moslem. Whoopee: that’ll catch all the Yemenites bringing shurba bisan to their American cousins and the Nigerian grandparents with toy tigers for grandkids in New York. Terrorists will simply fly to Germany, China, or another country before booking tickets to the US – and the TSA will use that as its excuse for searching all foreign passengers.

Yet one country earns extravagant admiration from Americans who fear terrorism threatens us as much as our rulers pretend. They say we can protect ourselves by mimicking Israel’s aggressive and offensive “security.”

Alas, the TSA already incorporates some Israeli ideas, including one of its most absurd: “Consultant Rafi Ron worked with [Boston Logan Airport] to develop behavior pattern recognition. It's based on a similar technique used at Israel's Ben Gurion Airport, where Ron was head of security.” The TSA describes its “Behavior Detection Officers” as “utiliz[ing] non-intrusive behavior observation and analysis techniques to identify potentially high-risk passengers… TSA's BDO-trained security officers are screening travelers for involuntary physical and physiological reactions that people exhibit in response to a fear of being discovered.” Translation: these bozos believe they can read minds. They look for passengers who sweat or seem nervous – which includes just about everyone nowadays, thanks to the stress the TSA and the airlines inflict – and interrogate them as terrorists.

Predictably, folks who endure Israel’s punishing process aren’t nearly as enthused as those idealizing it from afar: “These days [July 2007], Israel's airport security screening system can leave you with the impression that it is either inept or deliberately set up to harass travelers,” complained Dion Nissenbaum, “who covered the Middle East as Jerusalem bureau chief for McClatchy Newspapers from 2005 to 2009.”

Then there’s this from a supervisor at Ben Gurion International Airport near Tel Aviv: “It is quite intrusive, the questions we ask … And, sometimes, people are not happy to answer them.”

Indeed. One unhappy respondent was “Rosemary Mahoney … a writer from Rhode Island, not a terrorist.” She described her ordeal: "The questions were shocking… Not just where I had been, but what hotels I had stayed i[n -- sic]. Did I have receipts for those hotels? What were the names of the people I had met…?… Where was my ticket home? …Every last item in my luggage had been taken out and spread out on tables about the room. … And there was a man at the end of the room, feeding everything into an X-ray machine." All that humiliation was in vain: the authorities prohibited Ms. Mahoney from boarding. “It wasn’t pleasant. I was actually very anxious. And didn’t really know what would happen to me.”

Israel can torment every passenger for hours because it is a small country with far fewer patrons clogging its 14 commercial airports than the U.S. has. Ben Gurion, its busiest, boasted only 11,478,027 international passengers in 2008 with perhaps another 500,000 domestic ones. Contrast that with Atlanta’s 90,039,280, Chicago’s 69,353, 876 or even Minneapolis’ 34,056,443 customers that year. Lengthy grilling of every passenger would bring American aviation to a halt. And for what? No terrorists have attacked any flight originating in the US since 9/11.

Terrorism is among the least of the dangers confronting us. The National Center for Health Statistics calculates that our odds of perishing in such an attack are … zero. But we stand a 1 in 8,848 chance of dying through government’s “legal intervention,” whether via “firearm discharge” or “execution.”

It’s time we recognized and repudiated the real enemy.

 

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (11)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Thomas Paine said:

	The Constitution is second only to the Bible Simple: Every time we stray from the principles in the Constitution, we take one step closer to Communism or Fascism. No good will come of it. Quit the Orwellian survellance and searches.
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 15, 2010
Votes: +11

Flu-Bird said:

	Imperial Storm Troopers The imperial storm troopers of EMPORER PALPATINE OBAMA and DARTH BIDEN back when we had KING WILLIAM THE FINK he sent in his storm troopers to wipeout the BRANCH DAVIDIANS he sent in his storm troopers to kidnapp ELIAN GONZALAS from reletives and send him back to CUBA so he could pay back a favor to FIDEL CASTRO one of his biggist supporters
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 15, 2010
Votes: -2

Mikey Pinkie-rings said:

	excellent article I appreciate the clear parsing of the issue. Well done.
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 15, 2010
Votes: +5

John D Hansen Jr said:

	Is the John Birch Society against the death penalty? I notice that in the second last sentence of your piece you refer to the very real danger of being executed by government. Is the John Birch Society actually opposed to the death penalty? (I have no axe to grind here--I'm not sure where I stand on the death penalty, so I'm just asking.)
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 18, 2010
Votes: +0

Robert said:

Does JBS support the Death Penalty? John D Hansen Jr, I'm not sure of any JBS official publication declaring support for the death penalty. I'll see if I can find any. However, I have no doubt they would be consistent with the Founding Fathers. The 5th Amendment declares, "No person shall be ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ..." Clearly, this doesn't say, "No person shall be deprived of life." It leaves that open to "due process". Also, in the Coinage Act of 1792 (just 3 years living under the US Constitution), Congress affixed the death penalty for counterfeiting, fraud, or embezzlement related to the coining of money. Sounds like the Founders intended to allow the Death Penalty. I expect the JBS would be no different.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 18, 2010
Votes: +0

John D Hansen Jr said:

Should the JBS support death penalty legislation? Robert, I asked if the JBS opposed the death penalty. Your reply can be summed up in your last two paragraphs: "[Based on the Coinage Act of 1792, it seems that] the Founders intended to allow the Death Penalty. I expect the JBS would be no different." I did a little digging, and discovered that the JBS does think that the death penalty is constitutional, as shown by the above webpage. And, indeed, the death penalty for counterfeiting was probably a good idea at the time. I have been told (but I haven't confirmed) that the biggest reason that the Continental paper currency became so worthless is the British were counterfeiting it by the boatload. That leaves open the policy question of whether to have a death penalty today. Of course, the JBS need not take a position on this question, but I can think of reasons the JBS might want to. In favor of the death penalty, it can be said that having a death penalty might make most of us safer, or at least better avenged. Against the death penalty, it can be said that the court system cannot consistently be counted upon to reach a just result, and, likewise, the way things are going, the death penalty may be carried out on law-abiding patriots. So my question to the JBS is, what do you think?

report abuse vote down vote up

January 18, 2010 | url
Votes: +0

John D Hansen Jr said:

	Webpage for my death penalty comment Robert, In my previous comment, I tried to put the URL of the webpage I was referring to in the Website field. That didn't work, so I am putting it here: http://www.jbs.org/us-constitution-blog/5618-constitutional-interpretation-scalia-vs-breyer You should be able to cut this URL and paste it into the URL line on your browser.
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 18, 2010
Votes: +0

albert champion said:

i recommend that you vote with your feet STOP FLYING! shut the air transport system down. enough citizens stop flying, with a declared reason to the managements of the airline companies, their congresspersons, i can assure you that someones will take notice. and corrective action, possibly. there was no terrorism. there is no terrorism. it has all been a homicidal bit of theater. perpetrated by the us government that is intent on imposing an increasingly totalitarian regime on the citizenry of the usa. lamentably, the citizenry succumbs to the prevarications[false flag operations of the usg and its ally - israel]. wake up, sheep. marshall yourselves to contest the depredations of the wolves.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 25, 2010
Votes: +3

richard vajs said:

Flying is too miserable This Spring, I am scheduled to go on business from West Virginia to Florida and then to California and finally back to West Virginia. I shall not fly; I will drive all the way. I have no desire to put up with the fascism involved in the numerous flights I would have to take. I estimate that I would be groped at least a dozen times, have TSA people screaming at me for hours, buy crappy, overpriced food at the airports, and then get stuck in a middle seat between two large people for the equivalent of days all at the cost of thousands of dollars. So what if takes me another 10 days on the road; flying that much would take at least 6 months off my life.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 26, 2010
Votes: +3

DonT said:

	... Massive, organized civil disobedience will be necessary...and not necessarily effective, but worth a try. 100 Cessna 150s and Cherokee 140s simultaneously flying into the DC ADIZ and/or 300 people at one airport who simultaneously refuse to submit to TSA, and similar high-profile actions will get the attention of the storm troopers and maybe will bring them to their knees.
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 26, 2010
Votes: +0

GT said:

I never signed any d**n "Constitution" All this falderol as to whether or not the death penalty is 'constitutional' is so much ludicrous hagiography of a bunch of self-interested rich white landowners who saw themselves as a new aristocracy. (Many of them - including the dude who wrote that 'all men are created equal, endowed etc etc" - were slaveowners). The State can't simply write down that it has the right to kill you, and then get a rubber stamp from some parasitic scumbag like Scalia, Roberts or Alito... and then say "Well, that's "constitutional" then'. To paraphrase Diderot" man will be free the day the last politician is bludgeoned to death with the severed arm of the last polcie sniper. Chin chin GT

report abuse vote down vote up

January 27, 2010 | url
Votes: +1