TSA Chief Defends Airport Pat-Downs (but Hillary Clinton Wouldn't Want One)

[spookyturtle 9,465]

The New York Times has editorialized about the more aggressive pat-downs being done at airports, saying, "There are far too many reports of T.S.A. agents groping passengers, using male agents to search female passengers, mocking passengers and disdaining complaints." Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was asked Sunday on CBS's Face the Nation if she would submit to one, and she answered with a laugh: "Not if I, not if I could avoid it. No, I mean who would?"

It was less of a laughing matter for John Pistole, the embattled head of the Transportation Security Administrator, whose agency was the target of the Times' criticism, who had been grilled earlier last week about the new procedures at a Senate hearing, and found himself walking a fine line Sunday between defending the security measures while trying to be "as sensitive as I can to those folks" who have been offended or shocked by what they see as overly-intrusive searches.

Clinton said on CBS: "I understand how difficult it is, and how offensive it must be for the people who are going through it." Appearing also on NBC's Meet the Press, she added, "Striking the right balance is what this is about. And I am absolutely confident that our security experts are going to keep trying to get it better and less intrusive and more precise. But at the same time, we want people to travel safely."

Appearing on CNN's State of the Union, Pistole was asked to join host Candy Crowley in a kind of play-by-play review of videos of various pat-downs that included screeners touching a woman's breast, putting a hand in the pants of another person and feeling a man's crotch.

"OK ...This is a hand obviously going inside the pants. That's OK?" asked Crowley.

"That's okay around the belt line," Pistole said. "And what we're doing here, Candy, just so people are aware, that, for example, on Christmas Day, with the underwear bomber, what we're looking for here is, you notice the officer with the gloves on -- those gloves will then be tested for explosive trace residue."

Pistole was referring to the case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab who boarded a Detroit-bound flight on Christmas Day with an explosive device sewn in his underwear that did not go off. Pistole had told the Senate panel last week that if a pat-down had caught Abdulmutallab before he got on the plane, "We might be having a different dialogue here this afternoon and in the public."

"Here's the last one," said Crowley, rolling out the video of the man's crotch being searched. "Is that OK?"

Pistole said it was, although he acknowledged, "It's clearly -- it's invasive; it's not comfortable."

"What you seem to be saying is, you can be touched anywhere," Crowley said.

"No, no, no, I'm not saying that at all," Pistole responded. "There are standard operating procedures for the pat-downs. So some of these horror stories I've heard are frankly inaccurate, either misinformation or whatever. There are a number of people who have been touched, as you say, patted down in a way that they never expected."

Defending the pat-downs that do take place, Pistole said, "It really comes down to what is that balance between privacy and security, and without profiling ... People talk about, well, why don't we profile? Of course, we don't do that here in the U.S., but we use all the latest intelligence. We have watch lists. We know about people who pose a threat to aviation security. It's those we won't know. And so it's that balance between privacy and security."

He underlined that if a would-be passenger gets by all the security checks and the metal detectors but chooses to "opt out" of going through the Advancing Imaging Technology machines (a term the TSA now prefers over "whole body imagers" or full body scanners), the only way to ensure they don't pose the same kind of threat as the would-be Christmas Day bomber is to make sure they "receive a thorough pat-down so they don't pose a risk to that plane."

"Is it demeaning?" Crowley asked.

"I think it really comes down to the person," said Pistole. "I've talked to a number of people who said, 'Hey, this is exactly what we need to be doing; it is thorough, and that's what I want; I want thoroughness when ... when I get on a plane, to know everybody has been screened properly.' To some people, it is demeaning."

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/11/21/tsa-chief-defends-airport-pat-downs-but-hillary-clinton-wouldn/?icid=maing|main5|1|link3|27182

[nab 74]

The New York Times has editorialized about the more aggressive pat-downs being done at airports, saying, "There are far too many reports of T.S.A. agents groping passengers, using male agents to search female passengers, mocking passengers and disdaining complaints." Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was asked Sunday on CBS's Face the Nation if she would submit to one, and she answered with a laugh: "Not if I, not if I could avoid it. No, I mean who would?"

It was less of a laughing matter for John Pistole, the embattled head of the Transportation Security Administrator, whose agency was the target of the Times' criticism, who had been grilled earlier last week about the new procedures at a Senate hearing, and found himself walking a fine line Sunday between defending the security measures while trying to be "as sensitive as I can to those folks" who have been offended or shocked by what they see as overly-intrusive searches.

Clinton said on CBS: "I understand how difficult it is, and how offensive it must be for the people who are going through it." Appearing also on NBC's Meet the Press, she added, "Striking the right balance is what this is about. And I am absolutely confident that our security experts are going to keep trying to get it better and less intrusive and more precise. But at the same time, we want people to travel safely."

Appearing on CNN's State of the Union, Pistole was asked to join host Candy Crowley in a kind of play-by-play review of videos of various pat-downs that included screeners touching a woman's breast, putting a hand in the pants of another person and feeling a man's crotch.

"OK ...This is a hand obviously going inside the pants. That's OK?" asked Crowley.

"That's okay around the belt line," Pistole said. "And what we're doing here, Candy, just so people are aware, that, for example, on Christmas Day, with the underwear bomber, what we're looking for here is, you notice the officer with the gloves on -- those gloves will then be tested for explosive trace residue."

Pistole was referring to the case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab who boarded a Detroit-bound flight on Christmas Day with an explosive device sewn in his underwear that did not go off. Pistole had told the Senate panel last week that if a pat-down had caught Abdulmutallab before he got on the plane, "We might be having a different dialogue here this afternoon and in the public."

"Here's the last one," said Crowley, rolling out the video of the man's crotch being searched. "Is that OK?"

Pistole said it was, although he acknowledged, "It's clearly -- it's invasive; it's not comfortable."

"What you seem to be saying is, you can be touched anywhere," Crowley said.

"No, no, no, I'm not saying that at all," Pistole responded. "There are standard operating procedures for the pat-downs. So some of these horror stories I've heard are frankly inaccurate, either misinformation or whatever. There are a number of people who have been touched, as you say, patted down in a way that they never expected."

Defending the pat-downs that do take place, Pistole said, "It really comes down to what is that balance between privacy and security, and without profiling ... People talk about, well, why don't we profile? Of course, we don't do that here in the U.S., but we use all the latest intelligence. We have watch lists. We know about people who pose a threat to aviation security. It's those we won't know. And so it's that balance between privacy and security."

He underlined that if a would-be passenger gets by all the security checks and the metal detectors but chooses to "opt out" of going through the Advancing Imaging Technology machines (a term the TSA now prefers over "whole body imagers" or full body scanners), the only way to ensure they don't pose the same kind of threat as the would-be Christmas Day bomber is to make sure they "receive a thorough pat-down so they don't pose a risk to that plane."

"Is it demeaning?" Crowley asked.

"I think it really comes down to the person," said Pistole. "I've talked to a number of people who said, 'Hey, this is exactly what we need to be doing; it is thorough, and that's what I want; I want thoroughness when ... when I get on a plane, to know everybody has been screened properly.' To some people, it is demeaning."

http://www.politicsd...5|1|link3|27182

another issue... when you request new gloves, will that also buy you the more "rough" pat down that troublemakers get. otherwise you could be subjecting yourself to all types of infections ... keep in mind it doesnt have to be soemthing they've dragged from soemone ele's crotch to your neck, behind ears, inside bra, and so on it can also be a skin infection from just an open area of skin on the previous traveler.

these "rules" are too open-ended and are allowing for people to be groped, INSIDE their clothing or face a fine. nothing "misinformative" about that at all. and where is the signage at the entrance BEFORE people enter the $1000-3000 area (rhetorical)