Airport Security Gets Too Close for Comfort

There's been a general uproar over the past week regarding the Transportation Security Administration's latest affront to privacy in the name of "security". Citing the attempted Christmas Day "underwear bombing" of 2009, new guidelines require passengers to submit to either a full-body scan that leaves nothing to the imagination (airline security screeners can tell whether a passenger is circumcised or not), OR a full-body pat-down including the genital area that comes a little too close to sexual assault for some.

While a superficial impression might indicate that Americans are finally rebelling against the constant erosion of civil liberties and invasions of privacy that have characterized the post-9/11 environment, Glenn Greenwald (as always) provides us with a much-need reality check. After the obligatory pillorying of the national-security establishment for its continued efforts to control the U.S. population by instilling fear of foreign terrorism, Greenwald lays out his pessimistic take on the situation:

My first reaction was that the public backlash could be productive in finally drawing a line the citizenry will not permit the Government to cross with these manipulative tactics.

But I now believe that optimism was unwarranted. That's because there's no real principle being vindicated here: with a few noble exceptions, it's all just deceitful posturing.

In one corner we have the American Right, magically re-discovering their alleged belief in privacy and government restraint now that they see an opportunity to politically harm Obama by waving that flag once again. These, of course, are the very same people who spent the last decade cheering on every radical expansion of unchecked government authority and privacy destruction when it was their Party doing it -- ones far, far worse than these airport screening measures -- and who will undoubtedly do exactly the same thing the next time a Republican occupies the White House.

I have no doubt -- none -- that if there were a Republican President in office now, these very same people would not only be defending the TSA in the name of Staying Safe, but maligning critics as Privacy Fetishists, Civil Liberties Extremists, and Friends of The Terrorists. Nobody has less credibility to march under a privacy and civil liberties banner than that right-wing faction (and see Darren Hutchinson on just some of the out-of-control government powers they cheer on domestically). And that's to say nothing of their real agenda: to privatize airport security, the way our prison system has been -- as though having Blackwater or the Paragon of American Authoritarianism, Rudy Giuliani, take over from the TSA will preserve our liberties and privacy.

In the other corner, we have the Democrats, who -- in perfect unison -- would be screaming bloody murder about these methods and waving the Flag of Civil Liberties if George W. Bush were still President, as they would smell partisan advantage from doing so. But since it's Barack Obama who is President, they are -- with a few exceptions -- meekly raising concerns, though more often acquiescent to the TSA when they aren't outright supportive.

And then we have the indignant, put-upon American People. They're not angry that the Government had adopted inexcusably invasive and irrational security measures. They're just angry that, this time, it's being directed at them -- rather than those dark, exotic, foreign-seeming Muslims who deserve it, including their own fellow citizens. And if there were a successful bombing plot against a passenger jet, many of those most vocally objecting now would be leading the way in attacking the Government for not having kept them Safe, and would be demanding even more invasive measures -- just directed at those Other People, the Bad Dark People over there. Eugene Robinson is exactly right when he wrote today in The Washington Post:

What the critics really mean is not that the TSA should let underwear bombers board planes. What they're saying is: Don't search me, and don't search my grandmother. Just search the potential terrorists.

In other words, they want profiling. That's a seductive idea, I suppose, if you don't spend a lot of time worrying about civil liberties. But it couldn't possibly work. Our terrorist enemies may be evil, but they're not stupid.

While the Land of the "Free", Home of the Scared continues to grapple with its terrorism problem - i.e., the government terrorizing its population to justify increased repression and endless war - the Great White North has once again proven its superior progressive credentials. The Canadian Air Transport Security Authority now says that passengers singled out for a pat-down will be told at the outset that this can be done in private. Phew. I certainly wouldn't want to be sexually assaulted publicly.

Hats off to John "Don't Touch My Junk" Tyner.