My Letter to Senators, Congressman About the TSA

(I forgot to mention the trauma for sexual assault victims, the danger of absolute power, and the questionable safety of the machines, but hey, I can't remember everything.  Letter sent via each rep's on-line form with appropriate salutation for each):

November 16, 2010 

Dear Senator Mikulski/Cardin/Congressman Cummings:

[To Elijah Cummings only: I had the honor of meeting you during the last day of early voting in Baltimore earlier this month.  I told you how proud I am of having you as my representative in Congress and how much I appreciated your work on healthcare reform.]

I am writing to protest in the strongest possible terms the abuse and infringement of rights being perpetrated on us by the TSA. 

First of all, the stripsearch scanners were rammed down our throats by corporations who stood to profit from them (such as Rapiscan – how appropriate a name – represented by former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff) and by our elected leaders who acted out of haste at best and cowardice at worst.  Second, we now we have punitive and degrading gropefests foisted upon passengers who opt out of the stripsearch scanners.

Every experienced security expert who’s not a corporate shill has come out against these pointless, worthless scanners.  I’m sure your staff can compile a list of names if they haven’t already.  I’ll give you just a few:  U.S. security expert Bruce Schneier; Israeli security expert, in charge of Ben Gurion airport, Rafi Sela; MP Ben Wallace of Great Britain; Stephen M. Lord of the GAO; former Secret Service official Richard Roth.  These men, unlike the hired guns paid by Rapiscan and Homeland Security, have been speaking out relentlessly about the sham security of the scanners.

Homeland Security is spending $4.7 billion to supposedly “protect” us.  Instead, we’re being treated as common criminals.  I am a criminal just by setting foot in an airport.  I’m no longer a U.S. citizen, because the TSA has the right to stripsearch and/or grope me without probable cause, and there’s not a damn thing I can do about it.  Except not fly.  Which, after January, I won’t be doing anymore.  I’m about to take the last flights of my life, because I object to being treated as guilty until proven innocent.  I hope millions of other Americans also choose not to fly.  Then the airlines will feel it.  And then maybe we’ll get some changes.  Because as we know, in this country, money talks.

Security starts way before anyone even gets to an airport:  intelligence gathering, interpretation of data, responsible searching, responsible behavioral profiling, responsible investigating.  And sharing of information between agencies instead of stupid turf wars.  9/11 happened because of the incompetence of the U.S.  Now we’re all being made to pay by having yet more incompetence forced upon us.

Why is it that Customs & Immigration can conduct competent interviews and investigations, for millions of passengers, every single day, in this country, yet the TSA can’t?  Why are my tax dollars going to funding this security theater?  Why am I paying for humiliation and incompetence?

We’re slowly being groomed to accept ever more invasive and ever more abusive practices.  The stripsearch scanners may be optional (though coercive) today, but they will be required tomorrow.  There’s no way I believe DHS when it says it will not implement universal compliance in the future.  And then what?  What’s the next logical step?  You know it as well as I – searching every passenger where the sun doesn’t shine.  After all, we have to be “kept safe” from “The Terrorists!”  If that’s “the price we have to pay to travel,” well, then, let’s do it.  And how about train stations?  Bus stations?  Subway stations?  Stadiums?  Malls?  What are we going to do, stripsearch everyone everywhere every time we step out of our house?  Where does it end?

We cannot live in a society that is 100% safe.  That’s called reality.  To be on this earth is to face risk.  You have a greater chance of being struck by lightning (1 in 500,000) than of being victimized by terrorism (1 in 10,408,947).  You have a far greater chance of being killed in a car accident.  But the bogeyman of “terrorist” is being used to quell the populace, just as “Communist” was used only a few decades ago.  Well, the terrorists have won.  They’ve already changed our way of life.  Not by bombs, but by our own paranoia and complicity.  If Congress doesn’t act to stop this abuse, we’ll have no one to blame but ourselves.

Sincerely,
Lisa Simeone

Comments

[litbrit]

Hear, hear. And thank you for the important names and figures, Lisa--I will be referring to them in my own letters, as will everyone else, I am sure.

Where does it end, indeed.

[joel hanes]

Would be a better letter without the tired trope "rammed down our throats", which here produces an utterly preposterous image, and which the Right overuses to such an extent that it's lost all vigor.

How about "forced upon the innocent and unwilling citizenry" ?

[Lisa Simeone]

Sorry, Joel. Letter's already been sent.

[joel hanes]

thanks for sending it.
I shall try to measure up by sending one as well.

I know I'm an annoying pedant,
but I've grown so very weary of hearing Tea Partiers complain about Obama ramming socialism down their throats, always with that same phrase.

[minstrel hussain boy]

besides, of the places i have had things rammed, the throat is best.

really.

[Lisa Simeone]

Just found out about the dreaded SSSS (gee, where I have heard something like that before?). I guess many people already knew about it, so I'm late to the game. I knew that when you print your boarding pass, you could be randomly assigned a code that would indicate to the TSA you get secondary screening, and I knew that the TSA ID-checker could also assign you secondary screening, but I didn't know the actual code. So if you look down at your ticket after a TSO has scrawled on it and see those four letters -- SSSS -- bad luck. You're in for it.

[litbrit]

Lisa, that's the first I've heard of that code. And like you, I read a ton of stuff on this!

I had a voice mail from C last night--I had called him with a quick legal question--and he is all upside-down on time because of being in Hawai'i for a couple of days (with only enough time to attend a meeting, sleep and turn around and fly all the way back to DC). I wonder if he's encountered any of the TSA's finest. The thought of some blue-gloved fool attempting to grope our dear C and the certain reaction that would follow just fills me with mirth. Not that I want him to be assaulted, mind you--I just cannot imagine the words that would ensue. Which would be yet more intense if he witnessed a woman or screaming child being groped while he was nearby. Yikes.

[Lisa Simeone]

Yes, he is a lawyer, after all, so he is far better equipped to resist the attempted intimidation by these goons. Honestly, that's why more lawyers need to experience this. Because they can give us the words to resist. We're only able to fall back on plain English, and the TSA will always manage to twist it and threaten us. But lawyers know exactly how to fight back.

Kathy A. has already explained the distinction between "consent" (we don't) and "cooperate" (we do, or might). We don't consent to be groped and humiliated, but we do or might cooperate. She says there's a huge legal distinction. But we need more linguistic tools than this.

[oddjob]

Speaks for itself.

[oddjob]

Humorist Dave Berry shares his TSA experience.

Hat tip, Sully.

[Sir Charles]

Hey guys. Sorry the near non-presence, but the five hour time difference, travel and schedule have not been conducive to posting. During down time, I find myself wanting to read old fashioned books more than the interwebs.

It does sound churlish to complain about being in paradise, but I flew out here Monday and it was 15 hours from house to hotel room, about 12 of those on a plane (coach naturally), which is a little bit of torture. I head back on the redeye this evening -- but have a few hours to kill -- hopefully poolside.

I have only been frisked twice in my many travels -- once in London and once domestically. I found it offensive. Alas, even lawyers are loath to complain, because 1) we are usually going somewhere with a real deadline; and 2) people often enjoy putting lawyers in their place, percceived as we are as arrogant and entitled -- this tends to be particularly true of petty martinets.

I actually haven't encountered much of this higher level of security on my many recent flights -- other than having to do the body scan a couple of times in Baltimore. No one has laid hands on me -- which is good -- I really do bristle a bit and I can imagine it not going well.

oddjob,

That logo must have been created either by someone who is a complete moron or a sly genius.

[Lisa Simeone]

Oddjob, yeah, I heard that interview with Dave Barry the other night. I know he's a humorist; I get it. But it was interesting to me how he tried to make a couple of serious points, only to have the conversation steered back to comedy. It was like, gee, we have Dave Berry here, guess we'd better not address anything serious! Have to keep it funny! I thought it was very telling.

That logo, by the way, is stupendous. We'll have to post it with credit to you for finding it.

Sir C, glad to hear you've come up for air. Keep in mind that just because you go through the scanner doesn't necessarily mean you won't get groped. That, indeed, is what's happening to thousands of people, as it happened to Dave Barry. Oh, and unlike what he did, I would urge everyone not to agree to go into a private room. If you don't have witnesses, as you surely know, anything can happen.

[kathy a.]

TSA has decided that it will not put pilots through the scanner vs. enhanced pat-down. the pilots expressed some of the same concerns as ordinary mortals, plus -- ya know, if you are worried about airline pilots blowing up a plane, they don't have to use explosives to do that....

TSA is the number one story on google news, with over 2,800 stories at the moment. i'm kind of stunned with the huge amount of attention. sure, there are stories along the lines of "shut up, we have to beat the terrists," but then there are others like this one, reporting that incoming republican leaders of the house transportation committee think the scanner/patdown measures go too far and violate privacy, as a first line of security screening. wow.

[Lisa Simeone]

Kathy, I wish you or another lawyer would address what would happen if a passenger did acquiesce to going into a private room and further abuse happened, or started to happen. What are our rights? We're not allowed to speak loudly, let alone yell, because that constitutes "elevated tone." On the other hand, I suppose that might be preferable, because "elevated tone" means they summon the cops -- real law enforcement as opposed to play-acting law enforcement.

But what, other than refusing to go into a private room, do you advise people to do? (And corollary: does refusing to be taken into a private room, without one's own chosen witness, in itself constitute being "uncooperative"?)

Somebody needs to give us some guidance here.

[Mandos]

Mr. BARRY: I, you know, I'm not going to argue that it's totally unnecessary. I'm not going to say that. I do think - and this is not an original observation - you see a lot of - I do - a lot of elderly ladies being pulled aside for one issue or another. And I suppose terrorists could use an elderly lady to attack a plane. I just don't think they ever have. It just seems like it'd make more sense to focus your efforts on things that are more likely to actually happen.

See, Dave Barry is OK with *my* groin being groped, but not his or an old lady's.

[kathy a.]

well -- first i want to make clear that none of my comments are "legal advice" -- they are just my personal thoughts and opinions. i do not have an attorney-client relationship with anyone here; i am not involved in any litigation; i have not done particular legal research.

second, these intrusive TSA measures are new. that means there is a lot of chaos in implementing them. it also means that there IS no law specifically addressing the mass strip-scanning or the alternative enhanced pat-down, much less guidance from the courts about details such as one's rights if one is told to go to a private room.

my plan is to be polite, calm, and cooperative [but register objections], for a few reasons. these TSA agents are trying to do their jobs; they do not have the power to change policy. if they feel threatened, there is a chance they will react to that. if a passenger causes a disturbance, there's a chance that makes one look unreasonable and the intrusive measures look more reasonable -- when courts get to these questions, they will be looking at reasonableness. (there is also the chance of being arrested for creating a public disturbance, or something like that, which would just be icing on the cake.)

i don't know whether a court would find that refusing to go to a private room w/o a witness to be "uncooperativeness." my hunch is, no. but that won't be decided by a court in the moment -- more like years. i'd rather not be a test case, personally. so, my plan is to ask politely for the frisking to happen right there in the screening area, so there are witnesses. if someone insists i go to a room -- which i do not believe is TSA policy -- i will ask politely for a supervisor or someone to observe.

some of the TSA stories here concern agents going even beyond the scanner/search that i think is unconstitutional. i would guess that these instances are rare -- unlikely to happen to any one of us -- but we are hearing about quite a few of them because so very many people travel by air. i think it's a good thing that stories are being told; and also that anyone who feels they have been violated might consider consulting a lawyer.

there you go -- a clear as mud non-legal opinion.

[kathy a.]

want to add -- these are my own choices, for my own reasons. the only ones i'd really urge on others, personally, is to avoid overt confrontation and physical resistance with the TSA.