TSA will work to make pat-downs less invasive

[catgirl]

Huffington Post:


WASHINGTON — The head of the agency responsible for airport security, facing protests from travelers and pressure from the White House, appeared to give ground Sunday on his position that there would be no change in policies regarding invasive passenger screening procedures.

Transportation Security Administration head John Pistole said in a statement that the agency would work to make screening methods "as minimally invasive as possible," although he gave no indication that screening changes were imminent.

-snip-

Pistole said that, as in all nationwide security programs, "there is a continual process of refinement and adjustment to ensure that best practices are applied."

Still, he pointed to the alleged attempt by a Nigerian with explosives in his underwear to try to bring down an Amsterdam-to-Detroit flight last Christmas. "We all wish we lived in a world where security procedures at airports weren't necessary," Pistole said, "but that just isn't the case."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/21/tsa-john-pistole-pat-downs_n_786517.html

Can we all breathe a little easier now? Just a little bit?

[hlthe2b]

1. I am thankful for the vocal outraged who have made this happen

[ClarkUSA]

8. "and pressure from the White House"

As per the OP.

Let's give credit where credit is due.

[hlthe2b]

10. "Pressure from the WH" who likewise were feeling intense pressure

as a result of TSA's failure to do due diligence. A rather late response for me to credit WH with taking the initiative of doing the right thing, sorry. They were responding to the pressure and reading the (quite obvious) political tea leaves.

[ClarkUSA]

14. That's your opinion. It's clear from the OP source that it was a combination of the two.

I doubt the head of the TSA would have changed his tune if President Obama had not interceded.

But I know better than to expect some people to give credit to the Obama administration when it's due.

[hlthe2b]

15. If it is due, I give it. But, there is no evidence that Obama admin

preemptively acted, rather than intervened in response to the intense backlash. I WISH I could believe the former were true. I WANT to believe the former were true. But, given Obama's defending of the policy, well into the backlash period, I believe it was a reaction to the emerging political realities. Not intervening only to halt BAD policy.

By contrast, I credit the Obama administration with being proactive in responding to the emerging Nuclear Weapons ban issue and the RETHUG hypocrisy. They are being both smart and principled in that response, IMO

[ClarkUSA]

17. Well, you wouldn't be in a position to know what happened behind the scenes, would you?

<< given Obama's defending of the policy, well into the backlash period >>

From what I read, President Obama said he wanted procedures to be less invasive, which is almost exactly what the TSA head is now saying.

[hlthe2b]

18. We all have experienced the timing...

You are wrong in denying he did not defend the policy as necessary. Google it. Biden was on MOrning Schmoe defending it on Thursday or Friday morning, followed by Obama responding to a reporters question that the "pat downs" were necessary and unavoidable.

[ClarkUSA]

19. Pres. Obama defended the policy as necessary but he also said it could be less invasive.

That is exactly what the TSA head is now saying.

The timing speaks for itself.

President Obama leads after judiciously hearing the concerns of the public, the TSA head follows.

[hlthe2b]

20. His stating it could be less invasive came later--after backlash

Yes, the timing DOES speak for itself.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[de novo]

26. The TSA is part of the Obama Administration.

They owned this from the beginning.

It was wholly their doing. Also, this article doesn't say anything is actually going to change. It doesn't say the nude-like x-rays are going to stop. It doesn't even suggest that those who opt out will not get groped. It just reinforces the fear-mongering and says that they will make it a least invasive as possible, which they have already claimed they have been doing. Here is the quote: "No, we're not changing the policies...We all wish we lived in a world where security procedures at airports weren't necessary," Pistole said, "but that just isn't the case."

Not much for the WH to be proud of here.

[DCKit]

2. Less invasive = less effective. Ain't gonna happen. n/t

[katandmoon]

5. They are already completely ineffective. They are for appearances' sake only.

[DCKit]

6. You're preaching to the choir... it's what the MSM will tell U.S.. nt

[MrModerate]

3. So why are they so stupid coming out of the gate?

The entire TSA culture needs to be changed.

[Arctic Dave]

4. More "talk". Now when you crotch is felt up they will just tell you, your are the exception.

[ClarkUSA]

9. Really? Prove it. I doubt you can.

[Arctic Dave]

11. "he gave no indication that screening changes were imminent."

So what does this mean? Tomorrow, next week, next year, next decade?

[ClarkUSA]

12. Um, it's obvious that some thought will have to go into what's to change.

Considering he was pressured to change by the WH (as per the OP), why would you expect him to say anything else? It's not as if he has been working on this before this afternoon. It is Sunday, you know, and he's hardly going to call in his colleagues today to work some new rules out.

[Arctic Dave]

13. It's very easy to just we we are rescinding our previous rule. Point settled.

[ClarkUSA]

16. What "previous rule" is the TSA head "rescinding"?

[Arctic Dave]

23. Molestation and perverts rule.

[ClarkUSA]

24. That's the meme Drudge is pushing on his front page. So much for "Point settled".

[CreekDog]

7. Is there an alternative to CastScope?

that's just one aspect I object to as unsafe, but I'm not relaxing until that aspect is optional and better yet, nonexistent.

[krabigirl]

21. But the machines will remain....

[Rosa Luxemburg]

25. if we have machines why do we have pats downs?

aren't the machines any good?

[Inuca]

27. Because

1. not all airports havethe machines; and 2. some people refuse to go through the machines

[LisaL]

28. And because if they see something "suspicious" on the scan-

one girl had a tissue and a rubber band in her pocket and that was suspicious enough for her to undergo a pat down after her scan.

[DirkGently]

29. They need to get rid of the Underpants Scanner, period.

There's no indication it even adds anything to security. Just another one-size-fits-all, expensive, hazardous intrusion reminding Americans that Anyone Could Be a Terrorist.

[Exultant Democracy]

30. I was one of the people pissed about the invasiveness of the TSA, but now I have a bad feeling

I hope Obama isn't being set up. Let's all cross our fingers and hope that everyone gets to where they are going safely this holiday season.