GOP Solon Fights Full-Body Scans

50 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

• 

  MastiffLover on November 17 at 10:30 a.m.

  I agree

• 

  moscow_minidoka on November 17 at 10:32 a.m.

  I agree with DFO and the GOP lawmaker. Full-body scanners are nothing more than “security theater” which does nothing to make us safer, but violates our privacy. This issue is exacerbated when you have small children to worry about - I don’t want some TSA idiot running my 6 year old through a scanner, *or* patting her down, thank you very much.

  I pretty much quit flying anywhere in 2003, mostly because it became such a headache to fly - mostly because of airports and the pretend security that mostly just serves to inconvenience us rather than make us safer.

  I’d rather drive an extra day than have some creep scanning my family or touching my junk.

• 

  jt on November 17 at 10:37 a.m.

  Agreed. I was also one of those who questioned the creation of the Dept of Homeland Security. To me it had overtones of WWII era Germany and the Soviet Union.

  It seems there are at least three ways to deal with ensuring passenger safety during air travel.

  1) “sheeple approach” - disarm the population and develop extreme, intimate searches to verify disarmament

  2) “GI Joe approach” - arm the population or at least allow passengers to carry their Swiss Army knives and similar on board thereby providing the ability to fight any attempted “takeover”

  3) “El Al approach” - hire the Israelis to perform travel security enforcement. Or at least use them to train our security forces. Yes, they profile. So be it.

  Personally, I’d go with number 2, believing there is less crime/misbehavior in areas where the potential victims are known to be capable of defending themselves.

• 

  Sisyphus on November 17 at 10:50 a.m.

  Uh, it was the left wing that started screaming about this. Funny how it doesn’t get on the Idaho radar until a Republican mentions it. Now they’ll claim it as their cause celebre, not because Republicans feel strongly about individual liberty, but because they can hammer Obama on it. If Republican felt that strongly about the fourth amendment, there would be no Patriot Act.

• 

  Bubblehead on November 17 at 10:53 a.m.

  Maybe it’s my military background that makes me more deferential to authority, but I see no problem with it — it seems like the most reasonable solution to a near insoluble problem. Also, with my nuclear power background, I recognize the radiation risk is very low (much lower than the extra dose you get from taking the flight). It’s not like I think I’m so sexy that people are just begging to see naked pictures of me or feel me up… other people apparently have that problem, however.

• 

  Sisyphus on November 17 at 11:06 a.m.

  81% of America agrees with you Bubbles. And I tend to agree too except that this really isn’t gonna be very effective. I’d rather see a poll of the regular flying public to see how unpopular this is.
  And I suspect that passengers have more to fear from engines failing than thinking that’s where terrorists will strike again.

• 

  jreighley on November 17 at 11:10 a.m.

  Odd thought – But I would really rather just show them that I am not hiding anything than let them touch me.

  Being flashed all day at work is a demeaning and ugly job — but that is what they get paid for…. It is better that they experience the discomfort more than I do..

  In general this whole things seems like a sweetheart deal for the scanner manufacturers — Probably does next to nothing to actually effect security.

  Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should do it. the extra .0005% improvement is very likely totally irrelevant. Attacks will target the weak link. Airports and Airplanes are not the weak link anymore..

• 

  dustinhurst on November 17 at 11:12 a.m.

  You know what’s funny - and possible historic - about this question? The answers given put DFO and MM on the same side as Rep. Phil Hart on the issue. Hart, if you remember right, pitched a bill to ban the scanners in Idaho. Passed the Legislature, but failed to get a hearing in the Senate.

  Word is that it wouldn’t have done much good, anyway. Sources tell me that TSA and federal law would have preempted the state law.

• 

  Kootenai_Conservative on November 17 at 11:20 a.m.

  Sis, if you want to spin this into a partisan issue, at least make sure the facts are on your side. Other than a few brief mentions on the Daily Kos, I’ve seen nothing from the left on this, whereas the right-wing blogosphere has been trumpeting this issue for days.

  It was GOPer Phil Hart whose anti-body scanner bill was passed overwhelmingly by the Republican House, despite the opposition of Democrats like Liz Chavez and Branden Durst.

• 

  JeanieSpokane on November 17 at 11:20 a.m.

  My dinner group of gal pals talked about this Monday night. Two are sisters and both travel a lot. One used to be a police officer. She felt very strongly that it was an infringement of her personal rights. The other said she didn’t mind - as long as it was actually making our country safer. She is used to being scanned because she’s kind of like the bionic woman - two hip replacements, a metal plate in her spine, knee replacements.

  But the real point is - where’s the proof that this is making us safer? And if it is NOT, then how can the profit being made on this (the HUGE profit) be justified.

  And I really, really don’t want a stranger getting down and personal with my private parts.

• 

  Lizard_People on November 17 at 11:23 a.m.

  This is one reason why Phil hart is a hero. He was fighting this from the get-go.

• 

  simpleton on November 17 at 11:26 a.m.

  I listened to an interesting piece by Lewis Black on the Daily Show last night about this. He pointed out how we as Americans are willing to invade 2 different countries and risked the lives of US military personnel in the process, and use un-manned drones to kill civilians all in the name of fighting terrorism. But apparently we’re not willing to sacrifice any of our personal privacy for the same cause. Is the life of one soldier worth less than my modesty?

• 

  Sisyphus on November 17 at 11:29 a.m.

  “This is one reason why Phil hart is a hero. He was fighting this from the get-go.”—there’s fighting and there’s tilting at windmills. His legislation was absolutely worthless and a waste of time. If he’s gonna keep acting like the smartest man in the room he’s gonna hafta stop doing stupid things for people to take him seriously.

• 

  Sisyphus on November 17 at 11:32 a.m.

  “And I really, really don’t want a stranger getting down and personal with my private parts. “—well I do. Where do I sign up? After all its why I have a cute blond doctor. ;-)

• 

  Howard_Martinson on November 17 at 11:37 a.m.

  I’m not sure the scanners will make flying safer, but there’s certainly no privacy violation. No one is forced to fly, it’s optional, therefore no violation.

• 

  oneandonly on November 17 at 11:47 a.m.

  Someone sent me this joke today—it seems fitting enough:
  FINALLY — A great alternative to intrusive body scanners at airports …
  
  The Israelis are developing an airport security device that eliminates the privacy concerns that come with full-body scanners at the airports. It’s a booth you step into that is not an X-ray or scanner — it detonates any explosive device you may have on (or in) you.
  
  This is a win-win for everyone, with no problems with racial profiling. It also would eliminate the cost of a lengthy, expensive trial.
  
  Justice would be swift. Case closed.
  
  You’re in the airport terminal and you hear a muffled explosion. Then an announcement comes over the PA system …
  “Attention standby passengers — we now have a seat available on flight number 1234. Shalom!”
  
  Hats off to the Israelis!

• 

  ><(((*> on November 17 at 11:51 a.m.

  Well i am glad bubblehead is such an expert on radiation…
  “Also, with my nuclear power background, I recognize the radiation risk is very low (much lower than the extra dose you get from taking the flight).”

  But these scientists would disagree.
  http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3685/cancer-ray-opt-out.pdf

  “it seems like the most reasonable solution to a near insoluble problem.”

  other more dangerous airports don’t use them and have MORE success.

  http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744199–israelification-high-security-little-bother

• 

  Sisyphus on November 17 at 12:00 p.m.

  “Other than a few brief mentions on the Daily Kos, I’ve seen nothing from the left on this, whereas the right-wing blogosphere has been trumpeting this issue for days.”—I love it when a conservative comes out and demonstrates just how small his world is. Yeah, the right wing blogosphere riffs off whatever blue sirens Drudge puts up that day. But if you’re oblivious to the turmoil when this began in 2004, you, my friend, need to be introduced to Glenn Greenwald. Here’s a piece he wrote waaaaay last January.

  http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/02

  You can go back to 2004 if you wish. And I appreciate the fact you think Kos rules our world, He’d find that misconception by you funny as well as typical. But I’m sure he’d appreciate that you come by to read, he’d just wish your read for comprehension and more often.

  Your assertion just shows that, unless Drudge tells the sheeple, the tree didn’t fall in the forest.

• 

  bcnqrgd on November 17 at 12:05 p.m.

  Those that don’t like it should take a bus or a train…

• 

  DFO on November 17 at 12:09 p.m.

  @ Lizard People re: “This is one reason why Phil hart is a hero.”

  I sincerely hope this is one of those times that you’re just trying to get a rise out of people. A hero is someone like Salvatore Giunta, who charged into enemy fire in Afghanistan to save soldier buddies, not someone who helped himself to trees on state endowment land — or who’s $500,000 behind in income tax payments to the feds & state of Idaho. Nice try …

• 

  ><(((*> on November 17 at 12:09 p.m.

  Howard_Martinson on November 17 at 11:37 a.m.

  I’m not sure the scanners will make flying safer, but there’s certainly no privacy violation. No one is forced to fly, it’s optional, therefore no violation.

  That’s a dumb statement. Period.

  No one is “required” to have a cell phone, but if everyone phone call was listened to, would you just “not have one”.

  No one is “required” to have the internet, but if everything you did was tracked and audited, would you just “not have one”.

  That’s a damn slippery slope.

• 

  Joker on November 17 at 12:14 p.m.

  @Lizard People

  Phil Hart is no hero. Real heroes risk their lives to protect others. Phil is the slime you find on the bottom of a tub that hasn’t been cleaned in months.

• 

  Kootenai_Conservative on November 17 at 12:17 p.m.

  I’d be alarmed if Kos actually did rule your world, but I assume his blog is at least somewhat representative of the memes circulating therein. If there are other leftist voices elevating this issue above a few brief references, kindly point them out.

  I’d also be interested to hear what conservative blogs you frequent. There must be a lot if my daily consumption of Kos is just part of my “small world.”

• 

  Kootenai_Conservative on November 17 at 12:22 p.m.

  I also enjoyed your smearing me for thinking Kos “rules” the left while simultaneously accusing the right-wing of just parroting whatever Drudge puts out, all without any sense of irony. Good stuff.

• 

  LarrySpencer on November 17 at 12:58 p.m.

  Sis, @ If Republican felt that strongly about the fourth amendment, there would be no Patriot Act.

  In Idaho, the state Republican party has opposed it, I think it is in the platform now.

• 

  Kootenai_Conservative on November 17 at 1:02 p.m.

  And don’t forget that Butch Otter was one of the few GOP members of Congress to vote against the Patriot Act.

• 

  scootermom on November 17 at 1:11 p.m.

  In 2004, the Idaho legislature considered a bill that would have made it a misdemeanor to refuse to submit to airport screening, including a body search.

  http://www3.state.id.us/oasis/2004/S1333.html

  It had Republican support, it was the D’s and the moderate R’s who opposed. Along with the ACLU.

• 

  LarrySpencer on November 17 at 1:57 p.m.

  Scooter, are you saying that Sen Sweet was a moderate? Or the sponsor, Sen Lodge is not a “moderate”???

• 

  Bent on November 17 at 2:02 p.m.

  Can’t wait for my next trip… I am going to look for the sexiest TSA agent and ask her to scan me…

• 

  MastiffLover on November 17 at 2:06 p.m.

  What will happen when the hiding places are inside the body? I read the Israeli approach, however, what will we be subjected to after this? Cat scans? MRI’s? Who will pay for that? Who is profiting from our fear? Who actually wins here?

• 

  MastiffLover on November 17 at 2:06 p.m.

  whoops, I meant CT scans…….. still thinking about the cat looking over the fence…… lol

• 

  Sisyphus on November 17 at 2:06 p.m.

  “I am going to look for the sexiest TSA agent”—you be sure and let us know how long that takes you. ;-)

• 

  LarrySpencer on November 17 at 5:09 p.m.

  @“I am going to look for the sexiest TSA agent”—you be sure and let us know how long that takes you. ;-)

  Everything is relative, sis.

  Set the standards low enough……

  My guess is that he ends up with a testosterone loaded 400 lb gorilla getting frisky with him.

• 

  Bubblehead on November 17 at 5:15 p.m.

  @phantomsilence: Actually, I am an expert on radiation. And scientists can be alarmists with agendas as much as anyone else. There are enough “OMG, it’s radioactive, it’ll kill us all” “scientists” out there to come up with almost any opinion to support anything anti-nuclear.

  The amount of radiation one gets from the scanner is equal to that amount of extra radiation one gets from one minute of flying at altitude.

• 

  Bubblehead on November 17 at 5:24 p.m.

  @DFO says the scanners are “an incredible violation of our 4th Amendment rights”. Let’s look at the wording: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

  How exactly is this any more of a violation than someone being able to open up your briefcase and rifle through it as part of airport screening, which they’ve been doing for a lot longer without this level of complaint? The 4th Amendment doesn’t seem to give any more weight to “persons” than “effects”. I’m sure there are absolutists who believe that any governmental search associated with air travel is unConstitutional; to them, I’d say that the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

• 

  Bubblehead on November 17 at 5:41 p.m.

  @phantomsilence: That link you provided from the UCSF professors was hysterical. Here’s their argument: “The physics of these X-rays is very telling: the X-rays are Compton-Scattering off outer molecule bonding electrons and thus inelastic (likely breaking bonds).
  Unlike other scanners, these new devices operate at relatively low beam energies (28keV). The majority of their energy is delivered to the skin and the underlying tissue. Thus, while the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high.”

  Basically, they’re saying that because the radiation is low energy, and therefore less penetrating, it’s somehow more dangerous. That’s completely disingenuous. Not only do low energy x-rays affect fewer cells than higher energy ones through Compton Scattering, notice how they don’t mention that the occupational limits for skin exposure established by the federal government is 10x that of the “whole body” (internal organs) — skin cells divide less rapidly, therefore are at a lower risk of becoming cancerous. Even they admit the dose would be “safe” were it a whole body dose.

• 

  DFO on November 17 at 5:43 p.m.

  I’m posting this for a Berry Picker named Tom who doesn’t have an account:

  Isn’t it interesting that we will engage in two wars, sending tens of thousands of military men and women into danger, with thousands losing their lives and suffering terrible injuries, all in an effort to combat terrorism and hold those responsible accountable, and yet some of us can’t agree to make a small sacrifice of our personal modesty for a few moments to do what we can here to help in the effort. Instead we have some elected representatives and members of the public griping and making indignant statements about their constitutional rights. Please, get over it. It’s a fairly minor thing we’re being asked to do. The people I know who travel frequently may not enjoy the searches but actually welcome them as a way to ensure their flight is safe. Why is it that so many people these days think the sacrifices that are sometimes needed to live in a social world, both large and small, should always come from someone else?

• 

  jt on November 17 at 5:58 p.m.

  um DFO, a good chunk of this is almost word-for-word from Lewis Black’s commentary on Jon Stewart’s “The Daily Show” show. Here’s one link.

  http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-november-16-2010/back-in-black–nanny-state

• 

  jt on November 17 at 6:02 p.m.

  Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
  Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
  US author, diplomat, inventor, physicist, politician, & printer (1706 - 1790)

• 

  Arch_Druid on November 17 at 6:10 p.m.

  My opposition to the “U.S.A. Patriot Act” was because of the abusive way that it could be used against innocent Americans. However, when it comes to national and international travel and as long as terrorism continues to flourish, then anything that contributes to assuring safety and reduces significantly the dangers of an extremist targeting members of your collective families on an airplane, subway train or what ever, should be a good thing.

  What astounds me, is that the GOP not so long ago ranted that we needed to keep Guantanamo open because we couldn’t dare try them in a civilian court or that we couldn’t dare house them in civilian prisons. The same party that used a “fear of terrorism” to run for office and target the Dems in general and Obama in particular. But now, with a change in the administration, what seems to have happened?

  Go figure.

• 

  Norther on November 17 at 6:19 p.m.

  baseline dose explanation:

  1 TSA back scatter (Compton effect) scan = 1/50th of a Chest X-ray.

  On average, it is customary to use 60-65 kVp (kilovolts peak) twelve pulse fully rectified beam to take an X-ray of a human finger. Add in mAs (milliamperes per second) of about 0.9 with a normal beam filtration of 1.0 mm lead equivalent and you get about fifteen times the direct dose of a full body TSA back scatter scan.

  People living in Denver, Colorado get the radiation equivalent of a scan … wait for it … every single day.

  Although I find the scans to be completely worthless, it makes someone feel better evidently. For example, with only a coronal view (front to back) there is no way to determine where the density is. Also, it cannot distinguish between different density types. All it can identify is a solid object. But radiologically speaking, they are relatively harmless. Believe me when I tell you that if they were as harmful as the scientists from UCSF would lead you to believe, the American College of Radiology would have a field day with the government.

• 

  Bubblehead on November 17 at 6:38 p.m.

  @jt - While Franklin was right about a lot of things, I believe he was wrong here, or was talking philosophically vice real world. I submit that it’s not black and white, but grey.

  As a counter-example, I offer a hypothetical 2nd Amendment absolutist who believes the 2nd Amendment gives him (or her) the right to violently overthrow the government. To this end, they have a truck filled with ammonium nitrate fertilizer infused with diesel fuel parked in their backyard that they’re going to use to blow up a local government building when the crunch comes. Taking Franklin’s suggestion, the government would not be able to tell him or her that he couldn’t keep it parked on his own property, despite the likelihood it might explode accidentally and kill all his neighbors. In this case, I believe that perceived liberties must be sacrificed for public safety. Likewise, when there exist bad guys who have demonstrated the ability and desire to use aircraft to attack the U.S., I submit that we need to find a balance between unrestricted liberty and public safety.

  Off topic, Franklin was also wrong in his support of a turkey vice eagle as the national symbol.

• 

  Stickman on November 17 at 6:46 p.m.

  If you are going to fly these days, calm down and just get on the plane. Otherwise, take the bus or drive. Pretty simple.

• 

  jt on November 17 at 7:09 p.m.

  @Bubblehead - we disagree. And keeping a truck full of diesel-laced ammonium nitrate is a public safety hazard.

  A docile, subservient, disarmed population is easily managed and manipulated. Creating numerous environments in which that docility and subservience is required instills a learned behavior. I am not saying we should all be carrying firearms, concealed or displayed. I am saying a strong, independent, unafraid population is much better at constraining those who would do them harm.

  Correct, Stickman, I choose not to fly.

• 

  Bubblehead on November 17 at 8:38 p.m.

  I would hold that not taking prudent steps to prevent bomb-carrying terrorists from boarding a passenger plane is also a public safety hazard.

• 

  Kootenai_Conservative on November 17 at 8:59 p.m.

  Bubblehead,

  The advanced-imaging scanners lack the ability to detect low-density objects like powders and liquids, and they likely wouldn’t have prevented the Christmas bomber from making it through airport security. Neither the scanners nor the pat-downs are capable of detecting explosives that have been ingested or hidden in body cavities.

  These new measures aren’t making us much safer, but they are incredibly invasive, inconvenient, and costly, as well as potential health hazards.

• 

  Bubblehead on November 17 at 9:49 p.m.

  So, since we can’t find absolutely everything, you seem to be suggesting we don’t look for the things we can find? These scanners can find non-metallic guns and other solid items that metal detectors can’t.

  And I wonder who’s going to be screaming the loudest that President Obama didn’t do enough if, God forbid, a plane actually gets taken down…

• 

  ><(((*> on November 18 at 7:44 a.m.

  in the battle of bubblehead, blog commenter versus highly educated group of actual scientists the credibility goes to, yes, you guessed it. the group of actual scientists.

• 

  Bubblehead on November 18 at 8:31 a.m.

  But what if blogger Bubblehead is supported a much larger and more highly educated group of actual scientists, and Bubblehead is actually only using the knowledge that he has gained from studying this group’s earlier work?

  http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/SecuritySystems/ucm231857.htm

  My guess is that you still won’t accept any evidence that goes against your preconceived notions.

• 

  Norther on November 18 at 11:10 a.m.

  @bubblehead - I believe you … well, you and every radiation/nuclear monitoring service and group in the country. As well as about 250,000 plus RT(R)’s and countless Radiologists. But, hey, what do we know, we only work with radiation that actually produces both Compton and Direct Ionization beam radiation.

  I would wager that if UCSF or UC Berzerkly posted a study and came to conclusion that hotwheels cars caused measles in five year olds, there would be those who would take it as gospel.

« Back to Huckleberries Online

• ›Scanner traffic