PISTOLE: The back of the hand is still used in some aspects. I would prefer not to go into, um, specific details of in an open hearing simply because I don't want to give a road map to say that's exactly what the technique is and so how can we defeat that. We've just seen the ingenuity, creativity of al Qaeda particularly in the Arabian Peninsula with these last three attacks. I'd be happy to go into great detail in a private hearing. Honestly, any member who has not experienced that pat-down who would like to do that--I wouldn't offer it but an experienced qualified security officer would be glad to do that.
Initially upon watching this exchange, it would seem that Pistole turned bashful when asked this question and didn't like that the details he was being asked to provide might sound obscene (after all, Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic reported from a Baltimore Airport TSA informed him the new procedure requires searching up and down a person;s thigh and between their legs until they meet "resistance"). Describing the nature of the pat-down would likely sound like sexual assault. Of course, in this case the senators understood the context of the sexual assault was security so, if meant to keep Americans safe, it could ultimately be acceptable.
Really, Pistole did what every authoritarian does when he or she is confronted with the bizarre notion that he or she must explain or justify the reasons for certain actions, policies, procedures, etc: Pistole suggested that information must remain classified.
Had this been a casual conversation perhaps in a cafà © or bar setting, someone would have looked Pistole in the face and called him out for being f*cking ridiculous. The "road map" he alluded to is no secret. It is engraved in every American's mind that has just experienced this procedure for the first time in the past month. It has been described multiple times on blogs and in the news so if terrorists could really memorize how a TSA agent was going to grope them and develop a strategy to outsmart the agent so he or she could get through the security checkpoint the reality is this country would have probably been attacked by now. If the terrorist is part of a far-reaching network of individuals that hates us for our freedom, the moment the transition to new procedures began he or she would have hit America.
The
content of the hearing only affirmed what Goldberg pointed out: "The
pat-down, while more effective than previous pat-downs, will not stop
dedicated and clever terrorists from smuggling on board small weapons
or explosives." Why? Because if TSA, in the pat-down, does not plan to
cavity search all a**holes and vaginas there will still be a risk posed
to air travel.
And, if the aim of TSA is to humiliate
passengers so that they use the porno-scanners, as Goldberg also
suggested, then the public really has to be concerned about being
conditioned to accept going through <a
href="click here">a
machine that will likely pose risks</a> because of radiation.
Frequent travelers will surely begin to come down with cancer.
Cancer
might be worth it to some who are not just afraid of flying but also
flying and dying in midair or flying and dying as one collides into the
ground or a building. But, shouldn't one get to know exactly what
Homeland Security is doing and whether the machines actually can
prevent incidents like the one that touched off this escalation in
security? I mean, if you're going to get cancer to keep the greatest
country on the third rock from the sun safe, doesn't one get to know
that this isn't all just <a
href="click here">part
of some government kickback</a> to people like Michael Chertoff,
who allegedly was looking for a contract for some scanning machines and
exploited the shock of an incident in order to get a contract and do
some profiteering?
No, because Pistole and others don't
want the terrorists to be able to use their creativity and ingenuity to
get around the machines. That in authoritarian speak means the public
doesn't have a right to know because the agency in charge doesn't want
the public to know what it knows because the public might further
question the agency about its knowledge. (Donald Rumsfeld might say
here, "Known knowns will remain known unknowns to a public that just
doesn't have to know the knowns that we know are not unknown unknowns.")
That means until WikiLeaks leaks a bunch of TSA reports on homeland security Americans will be expected to trust that giving up one's Fourth Amendment rights is required in order to survive in this post-9/11 world of terror. They will be expected to submit to a security regiment that really just gives off the illusion of security because, in reality, nothing can ever be 100% safe.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
