Krauthammer’s “Don’t Touch My Junk” column is outstanding and I think he’s right that Americans’ tolerance for indignity to avoid the unthinkable prospect of profiling is exhausted. But I’m afraid some people are directing their anger at the wrong target. Ron Paul, for instance, has introduced legislation to remove TSA employees’ immunity from prosecution and arrest them for assault. Kick the Bureaucrat is a game conservatives love to play, and sometimes it’s justified, but this time it isn’t. The problem is the policy that the White House and its minions have instructed their subordinates in the civil service to carry out. And it’s not just the Obama folks; Bush insisted on this non-profiling approach, and Republicans ran Congress for four years after 9/11 and supinely permitted it.
I just heard Ann Coulter make this very point today, at David Horowitz’s shindig in Palm Beach (hey, a third-stringer like me can’t sneak onto the NR cruise, but this is a pretty good alternative!). Anyway, Ann said that the TSA people are actually big fans of hers, but they’ve been told to follow certain procedures, so what are they supposed to do? (She also suggested that everyone being groped should make “sex noises,” like in the “I’ll have what she’s having” scene in When Harry Met Sally.) Ironically, Ann’s fan base in TSA is likely due to the Democrats’ insistence that the function not be outsourced to private firms; this has meant that the TSA screeners are overwhelmingly Americans, often former military — almost the only Americans working at the big airports I’ve been to.
We see the same “kick the bureaucrat” thing in immigration — whether it’s overwhelmed Border Patrol agents or inspectors, or visa officers and USCIS adjudicators told to ignore fraud, it’s the hapless schmo carrying out the ridiculous policies of his superiors who gets blamed. The fish rots from the head down, and that’s where our ire, and our policy changes, have to be focused.
I completely disagree with you. This is more visceral than a game of "kick the bureaucrat" It is simply a reaction to anyone, irrespective of stature, invading one's privacy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think this is less a game of "Kick the bureaucrat," but rather the end of defending egregious intrusions in the name of national security. If the TSA and HHS management (up to and including Napolitano) are now liable to lawsuits over this, I'll bet you see very different behaviors. (You are right, in any case, that this started under the previous administration, and that far too many people went along with it blindly.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRon Paul is exactly right on this one. Following orders is never an acceptable excuse for doing something you know is wrong.
Let's not forget these are arrogant, rude, power-hungry jerks we're talking about. They're absolutely worthless in terms of security, cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars a year, and exact an enormous drag on society. On top of that we can now add groping seniors and small children in a humiliating manner, and I say they can all rot.
Despite John Pistole smugly telling us we don't have to fly if we don't like it, I have a job and not flying is not an option. My wife and children, however, will no longer fly. I actually don't see how any man could subject his children to groping by an adult stranger, but to each his own. For us that means no more family vacations to Hawaii or Disneyland, and I deeply resent not only the TSA, their employees, and all their Washington enablers, but anyone who would defend them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI also disagree. If the immunity from prosecution is removed, then the TSA employees can refuse to implement the stupid rules that their higher-ups are demanding. It is the only way those rules will be overturned.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMark, I often disagree with you on a number of immigration issues, but I'm with you 100% on this one. The problem is the policies, not the workers. I'm sure that 90% of them dislike doing it as much as we dislike having it done to us. They're not the ones pushing the policy changes.
It's the President and Secretary Napolitano who are responsible for this, and they should bear the full brunt of our justifiable anger.
The ONLY reason for these policies is so that no bureaucrat has to worry about being called in front of a Congressional hearing in the aftermath (God forbid) of another terrorist attack and explaining that we could have body-scanned the terrorist but didn't. But the answer to that dilemma is obvious. Anybody with the courage to stand up for fundamental principles would say, well, Congressman, we could have strip-searched every passenger, but then we wouldn't really be America, would we?
But nobody in our government has the courage to stand up for that, so they take refuge behind "going by the book." The goal is NOT to find a terrorist, for the entire TSA agency, the goal is ONLY to enforce the rules. That's it. No matter how convinced the TSA agent is that you're not a terrorist, he still can't let you carry the nail clippers on board, because then he wouldn't be obeying the rules, and he would be disciplined and eventually fired.
Kicking the bureaucrats does no good. The only people that cabinet secretaries listen to LESS than the American people are the bureaucrats they command.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is like the Emily Post version of the Nurenburg Defense. Yes, the TSA agent is only following orders; yes, he's at the tail end of a long chain of bad decisions, indifference, haste, and cowardly not his own; yes, mistreating him doesn't make much of a difference.
To that I say: so? If we make *being* a TSA agent as unpleasant as *dealing with* a TSA agent, maybe they'll try to be preemptively nice to us (a thin hope, I admit, but remember the next standoff-with-lunatics after Waco? Some idiots calling themselves "The Freemen"; the Feds treated them with kid gloves and nobody felt the need to set a church-ful of children on fire.) Maybe they'll just quit and the government will have to give up. Maybe it'll just make me feel better.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I think he’s right that Americans’ tolerance for indignity to avoid the unthinkable prospect of profiling is exhausted."
I was with you through "indignity," but then I got whiplash. What on earth does this have to do with profiling at all? After all, even if we *did* profile, the TSA people would end up groping a bunch of swarthy/black/Middle-Eastern-looking males, most of whom would be completely innocent and wouldn't like the treatment any more than anyone else.
I think it's simpler: Americans' tolerance for indignity is exhausted, period.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWow, Mark.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe "I was just following orders" defense?
Seriously?
Mark's got it right about the TSA situation. Mnmike is off base. It's not like TSA employees are enjoying the new rules at all. My dad's a 30 yr veteran of the military, working as a TSA mgr. now. They are following the procedures handed down to them as best they can.
Blaming TSA personnel is like blaming the local patrolman for setting up the speed trap his superiors told him was needed to reach the ticket quota. It might be emotionally satisfactory, but it's misplaced anger.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI suppose one develops an almost clinical detachment with this kind of work. But from the outside looking in, I can't say that being quickly groped before boarding a flight is nearly as disgusting as the thought of having to touch other peoples' junk all day.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI wonder if removing immunity as Ron Paul suggests will give TSA screeners the courage to say "no" to their supervisors.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSooner or later we are going to have to line up by whether we would rather be safe than free, or free than safe. From someone that flies coast to coast twice a month, I am truly fed up, and would rather be free than safe. My frustration goes back to 2001, when our reaction was more tough talk than the necessary overwhelmingly crushing force that should have been applied to send the message. We have done nothing but play defense since, and our freedom has leaked away, one security procdure at a time, accepted as the norm at airports as part of the price of flying, but soon to be applied at your local traffic stop. Sadly, we are boxed in a corner where it is truly too late to play offense.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm sorry but this "they are only following orders" defense is as tiresome as the onerous policies.
While there are professional TSA personnel, my experience is that they consider it to be you (the traveler's) fault that these procedures exist and vent their frustration accordingly. They exhibit a holier-than-thou approach as if they are imbued with some higher knowledge on the threat than we. TSA means "Touching Sensitive Areas" because that's apparently their purpose. They use TSA because the acronym for "Clowns In Action" was already taken.
Yes, it's a broad brush generalization. However, if the TSA won't profile, why should I?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe same point could be made in reference to many government employees. Many necessary and justifiable goverment workers are "kicked" by conservatives for simply following policies established by Congress, state legislatures or administrative bodies.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePatterico has a counterpoint:
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs a federal employee, I appreciate your sentiment with regards to “kicking the bureaucrat;” we are sometimes singled out a little too negatively at NR. Yet, it is hard even for me to generate much sympathy with the TSA. I agree that it would be more fair to direct anger at higher authorities, but it seems that holding individuals to the same criminal standards that the rest of us must abide is only right. If I performed any of these actions in my own place of work, I would surely be fired. In fact, with the obvious exception of a security violation (mishandling classified information); sexual harassment is probably the only way I could ever get fired.
As for “what they [TSA] are supposed to do” when forced to follow certain procedures, one option would be to simply quit. This, of course, comes off as a rather unfair choice, but then, is this not the same choice (to either submit or not fly at all) that all passengers are asked to make, especially those who fly for business and whose employment would also be on the line?
One final bit of irony that I feel compelled to mention: I work all day in a SCIF, and I do not have to endure even a fraction of the indignation that I do when I travel by air.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah, but if you work at a place that has a business plan of mistreating the public don't some people believe you have a legal/ethical responsibility to speak up? To not "go along to get along"?
For instance, many if not most of the Enron crowd that saw their careers (and companies) destroyed because of the fraud were not in positions to make Enron policy. They just did what they were told. No one on the Left felt sorry for what those people had to withstand.
Why should the government get gentler treatment? It should be held to the toughest of all standards. We're talking about the long arm of the law here. It's down your pants, man. And YOU feel the need to be polite?
(I'll come back next week to see my comment posted. /gripe)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe "hapless schmoes" applied for and accepted the job of their own free will. The "just following orders" defense ain't gonna cut it. They freely participate in this filthy, PC theater and deserve all the hostility they get. If they don't like the job, they can quit.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn the immortal words of Jungle Bubba:
"Just doin' my job, you know, he said to me.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHell even old Judas wouldn't cop that plea."
Niff, you are right about the TSA worker whose only choice is to stand on principle and resign. Not everyone can be a hero (seriously, I don't say that to denigrate).
However, today's pop culture loves to posture as "whistleblowers" who "speak truth to power." Maybe the fashionistas would be willing to celebrate some newly-resigned TSA who was boldly and publicly declared, "I'd rather be jobless than do that to another innocent American."
I'd have to borrow one of Hillary's to do that myself. But America is full of adventurers. Who love publicity.
(I thank the moderator and withdraw my earlier gripe.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse