The American Spectator

Paul Schubert| 11.18.10 @ 6:34AM

I could'nt disagree more! I don't believe that these new expensive machines operated by the useless (at least in Philly) TSA help security in any way. What will they do when the bombs are placed in a body cavity or implant? Lets be honest and admit that what we need is human intel and not tech intel. Profiling and conversation is how I would like to see airline security and I would like the Airlines to be in charge of it!

Nancy in NC| 11.18.10 @ 7:12AM

Good ideas, except if the airlines have to pay for the security ticket prices will go through the roof.

At least the airlines have a vested interest in safety. I'm not sure too many of TSA goons care either way.

I would be willing to wager that there are a number of people in the USA that could get WMDs through security. It takes ingenuity; that's why it takes intelligence to thwart their attempts.

Gazinya| 11.18.10 @ 12:52PM

The law reads that airports can opt-out of TSA and have a private contractor do the security. The law also states that the Feds will pay the private security contractor. The Feds would supervise but the contractor would be responsible for the security. These non-TSA people would be more efficiant and less 'I'm the government and I can do what I want' types. OPT-OUT, NOW!

Cabby - AZ| 11.18.10 @ 1:35PM

After reading an interview done by USA Today with John Pistole, Administrator of TSA, in July, 2010, I would say that this nonsense and violation of privacy rights is only beginning. He has made it clear that he intends to follow through with strong security measures on rails and subways. So, we had better get control of this NOW before it escalates. This needs to be nipped in the bud before it grows into even more of a horrible monster.

Bob From District 9| 11.19.10 @ 10:07AM

All the security was private on 9-11.

Is that what you want again?

Mel Torme| 11.19.10 @ 6:03PM

Yep.

P.S. Maybe some airline companies will allow CCW holders to bring their weapons. If that had been done on 9/11, we wouldn't be mentioning that date for any particular reason.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 7:54PM

This isn't about security, it's about Leftist power and control--just like ObamaCare isn't about healthcare.

This is typical Leftist tyranny. You will submit!

4TimesAYear| 11.18.10 @ 1:24PM

The problem is that none of this would have stopped the guy with powder sewn into his underwear. And it's my understanding his name was on a watch list. Someone's still not doing their job because they are too focused on little old ladies, children, etc.

bahmi| 11.20.10 @ 6:42AM

I'm totally suspicious of our suddenly finding all these would-be bombers. As long as bin Laden is the boogeyman, our government and the monied freaks who keep up this chaos and robbery will keep bureaucratizing and making our security efforts look childish and stupid. Profile, stupid, profile. It's proven that our own security people sneak through security installations at a high percentage rate, so this system will ultimately fail once we have real terrorists coming after us, not planted freaks who are mere dupes of bigger interests. The enemy is us, the MI complex, stupid defense expenses, etc. We pay, somebody else plays.

Stammon| 11.18.10 @ 8:42AM

That's correct. We need El-Al type security, not the 3 Stoogies TSA we have today.
Watch these and tell me that nothing is wrong with our security:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN6pJ7nP1yA
and:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFoa0LsqVbQ

On so may levels, this is a disgrace.

irish19| 11.18.10 @ 1:17PM

Agree wholeheartedly. A good start to actual security can be summed up in one word: profiling.

Reagan Loyalist| 11.18.10 @ 1:45PM

"Until then, we shall have to live like the Israelis."

Would that we WOULD have the same security focus as the Israelis - Profiling. Stop the 18 the 35 year old Muslim male for inspection. I reminds me of the gun control arguments - the gun has no agenda it's the human that harbors malevolence. So look for the perpetrator not just his weapons.

Your wrong on this one Mr.Tyrrell

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 3:48PM

Not only is Tyrrell wrong, he's lost his mind. Pornoscanners can't detect explosives inserted into terrorists' rectums--is the TSA going to demand a look up our asses next?

Maybe old Bob would enjoy that, too.

bus| 11.18.10 @ 4:36PM

Its on page 846 in the Obamacare bill. TSA agents will soon be trained to give prostate exams while doing their routine pat downs, thus reducing the pressure on the nation's doctors and hospitals.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 6:49PM

Wouldn't surprise me one damn bit.

I still think RET has lost his mind. Drudge reports today that 20% of Americans are mentally ill--perhaps old Bob is included in that number!

Bob From District 9| 11.19.10 @ 10:32AM

Learn something about how the Israelis scan. Their level of security has a lot more than profiling. You want 100% luggage search? You want to pay for professional security personnel every step of the way? Not minimum wage, but college trained? Their profiling is not the simplistic check the Muslim you think it is. It's psychological profiling also. The young lady who chats with you in the terminal is likely to be highly trained in evaluating your answers. The cameras don't just record you for the record, but are monitored like casino security in Vegas. They watch your every move.

You think our security is intrusive? You get Israeli level security and you will find Big Brother is very very real.

Will you complain about that too?

Mel Torme| 11.19.10 @ 6:04PM

Nope.

P.S. There is nothing "big-brother"- like about real detective work. But, it takes smart people who also work for security companies. We don't have a whole lot of that combination.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 7:11PM

No, I won't complain because I'll know that the security measures make sense.

carnot| 11.21.10 @ 9:51PM

you're missing the hidden point: BobFromOuterSpce prefers being groped AND the limited security this affords.

Bob From District 9| 11.19.10 @ 10:26AM

Ok, I see one video of a boy being scanned, with no problem. The other is a small girl who set off metal detectors twice. She would not cooperate with a hand scanner so she had to be patted down, by a female security guard.

Is that embarrassing? Yes. Was the child cranky before she even got there? Probably.

Is it wrong?
Ask the families of the people killed by a bomb strapped to a small child in Pakistan. Remember when they tried to kill Bhutto in Pakistan by bringing a child up to her while she was returning to Pakistan? There was a bomb strapped to the child, and only because security guards would not let the child's father approach Bhutto did he fail to kill her. He did kill a lot of others, though.

When you confront people who do that should we really want to fly on airplanes with people who won't check out children because they are afraid to offend you?

No thank you. I don't want my child to die because you don't want your child searched. You make the effort to be sure your child won't set off the scanner before you go to the airport.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 7:09PM

If a terrorist with explosives up his rectum passes through airport scanners and gropers to board a plane, and your daughter dies as a result of the subsequent explosion, are you going to demand TSA anal exams for all airline passengers?

You should think before you mindlessly submit. Baa baaa baa.

Edward White| 11.18.10 @ 9:00AM

A sensible stand on "pat downs," Mr. Tyrrell.

Drudge is often a mischivous provocateur.

And his constant denigration of "Big Sis" (implying she's a lesbian) is beginning to wear a little thin.

Like the bloated Limbaugh, Drudge has gotten way too big for his pants.

Grzmlyk| 11.18.10 @ 9:13AM

Since when is "Big Sis" an implication of lesbianism? It's the female variant of "Big Brother." You know, as in Orwell's "1984."

Just because it makes YOU think lesbian doesn't mean that's Drudge's intention.

As for Limbaugh, he may be obnoxious, but he also happens to be right on the big issues - and he has the courage to stand by his convictions. Often alone.

And no, Tyrrell's stance on "pat downs" is NOT sensible. Because the next time the terrorist find a way to do an end run around our procedures, they'll add yet another feckless layer to the already towering layers of procedures we have to go through - not to make us safer, but 1) to make us think we are safer; and 2) so that the TSA, like every government agency ever born, can amass more power and more money.

This is INSANITY.

Stammon| 11.18.10 @ 9:20AM

Mr. White;
Watch those two videos I linked to and tell me this is how you want your Government to treat our children.

Bob From District 9| 11.19.10 @ 10:36AM

Now, would you be a victim of the second bomb attached to a child, or the third?

There may be more sensitive ways to do it, but you don't want to pay for enough security people with enough training to take the time to do it that way.

I don't want my child to die because you are looking for an excuse to complain about the government one more time.

Skippy| 11.19.10 @ 3:17PM

Geez, Bob T. How did a smart fellow like you get sucked into the "if it saves only one life.." vortex of ovisian compliance?
We are looking for things. Things don't blow up planes or kill Americans. Muslims do. Look for Muslims and their sympathizers.
Until we are intellectually honest enough to say that "profiling" is actually "an accurate description of the suspect", we will be letting TSA flunkies eamine our body cavities and believing we are safe.
TSA clowns never look you in the eye, as the well-deserved contempt on the faces of the law-abiding travelers brings them to shame. They will however look at your wife and daughters in a manner that would normally have you removing your sidearm from the "safe" position.
No x-rays; no sexual assaults.
Look. At. The. Muslims. In. The. Eye. Every. Time.

Skippy| 11.19.10 @ 3:21PM

Examine. Sorry.
Oh, and Bob from Planet 9?
Shearing is at 5pm. Be there or be dinner.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 7:12PM

Exactly. Baa baaa baa Bob.

bus| 11.18.10 @ 4:38PM

Laws of Bureaucracy: #1 All policies are made during a moment of crises. #2 Once in place no policy is every erased.

ECM| 11.18.10 @ 9:25AM

Uh, wth does "Big Sis" have to do w/ lesbians?! Am I missing something*??

*Yes, I am, because you are being a "mischivous [sic] provocateur", and fail to grasp the laughable irony of your own words.

dareisay| 11.18.10 @ 9:46AM

Drudge doesn't write the articles, he only has links to them!

There is no sense in blaming Drudge or Rush for the articles they point out and then in Rush's case, comment on them!

You always have the option of never going to Drudge, or turning off your radio!

Grow up people, you are in charge of what you read or don't read and in charge of your own thoughts!

Bob From District 9| 11.19.10 @ 10:37AM

And you are in charge of convincing people to ignore the threat of the extremists who will take away your freedom by inspiring those who just need an excuse to hate.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 7:14PM

I bet you were one of the liberal morons screaming bloody murder about BusHitler taking away our rights! Hypocrite.

Edward White| 11.18.10 @ 10:01AM

And another thing:

The comment threads on this blog are often rude and immature. Civility, even in disagreement, should be a first principle when making comments.

American Spectator should require its commenters to respect the following rule no matter what their political views:

Insults, baiting, vulgarity, harassment or abuse directed toward other commenters will not be tolerated.

Is there no mederator on AmSpec? Does anything go? So many of the posters are hateful, immature men who have nothing to do but vent their anger all day long.

Their vulgar postings should not be tolerated. They make all conservatives look like idiots.

No wonder liberals say we're dumb and uneducated. The commenters on this page prove their opinion of us.

Edward White| 11.18.10 @ 10:04AM

I repeat: Civility, please.

Patrick in AZ| 11.18.10 @ 10:13AM

Excuse me Mr. White, but it was who accused Drudge of calling Napalitano a lesbian and it was you who called Limbaugh "bloated" - so who is it that is being uncivil?

Grzmlyk| 11.18.10 @ 10:37AM

Patrick makes an excellent point.

Not only that, but there's nothing uncivil about my reply to you at all. It's called disagreement. Passionate disagreement.

I'm not a fan of moderators. Aside from outright threats or otherwise dangerous/outrageous submissions, I prefer that commenters be allowed to let fly.

American Thinker - an otherwise great Web site - decided to ensure that it never ran afoul of the Federal powers that be; its creator, Thomas Lifson, didn't want to become a government target if a raucous debate crossed over into ugliness.

So they clamped down on the comments section with a Keystone Cops retinue of moderators of varying abilities and agendas.

I was actually asked to be a moderator on that site, and the clusterxxx online meetings, combined with the susceptibility of some to become intoxicated with power who immediately began to try to shape debate and police what people MIGHT be thinking - as opposed to providing guard rails for egregious violations - was anathema to me.

I don't even read the comments anymore because I know what they're going to say - they're all going to nod in demure assent to whatever point the writer of the article in question is making.

I don't like trolls and I don't like spammers, and I deplore out-and-out abuse and ad hominem attacks - which are the bread and butter of the trolls that post here.

But I'd rather have a free-for-all natural exchange than a walled-off and meticulously-landscaped garden.

Besides, I've noticed that the trolls usually fall away after their welfare checks run out and they have to go get jobs. Or after their mommies force them to move out of the basement. Or, in a few cases, before reality smacks them upside the head and they realize that all of their liberal blather bears no relationship whatsoever with reality.

As Truman said, if you don't like the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Sheila| 11.18.10 @ 11:24AM

Interesting you were asked to be a moderator at AT, Grz. I was banned there months ago; not PC enough. While my forcefully and cogently stated opinions are anathema to many of the reflexive republicans here, I have been careful never to use profanity or ethnic slurs. It's truly saddening that the freedom of thought and speech that I cherish is not merely offensive, but indeed terrifying to many here.

RCV| 11.18.10 @ 12:24PM

Some people just have a thing about associating with overt White Nationalists, Sheila. Don't take it personally.

Willey| 11.18.10 @ 3:52PM

And some trolls have a thing about associating with overt Fascist Liberals like Janet Napolitano, RCV.

Now bend over, moron!

ddn| 11.18.10 @ 12:30PM

I used to try and post comments on American Thinker, but my comments were either continuously edited (to their liking) or not printed at all. Once a liberal railed on a comment and AT wouldn't allow me to respond (post a reasonable reply) so it appeared that the LIB's point was more valid.

JimP| 11.18.10 @ 12:54PM

Thanks Grz for confirming the conclusion to which I had come about AT. I've lost track of the number of comments I posted that were edited, never appeared or at first made the cut but were later deleted. The censorship seems to apply selectively according to author also. There is one regular writer on who's articles my comments no longer appear, ever. I have no clue what I said that got me banned from this person's comment threads. I never said anything unsupportive or critical or in major disagreement with the author , didn't attack other commenters or anything else I can recall. Now I don't bother reading that author's columns. Not as petty payback, but because I didn't find them particularly insightful or informative after the first few columns, so no loss to me. Another thing I noticed is that a number of authors violate the rules for applied for comments, so there's a double standard.

I also noticed that the differing standards of censorhip. Some things would be posted and others not. With no substantive difference. There is frequently a lack of consistency of censorship even on the same thread. One person will get away with being insulting (or whatever) but if you defend yourself in kind, but with wit- not nastyness, it may not appear. I've had completely innocuous comments edited. It's "crazy town" as far as any objective consistent standard being applied.

So again, thanks for confirming my conclusion. Thanks to you as well Sheila for further confirmation. Now I know I am not paranoid.

Grzmlyk| 11.18.10 @ 1:11PM

Yes, I was appalled at what was going on at AT - really appalled. The chief moderator was a vindictive, petty, power-hungry woman who liked having her brood of sycophants gathered around her. Very nice as long as you didn't cross her - and then the vitriol flowed.

And the minions she assembled all reflected her neuroses. I was flabbergasted at the email exchanges among the various moderators.

Most of the circumspect ones dropped out pretty quickly - as did I. Those who stayed were no friends of conservatism. People were literally rewriting commenters' posts - it was Orwellian.

And the triumphalism, the presuming to know what was in people's hearts and the intoxication with power - it was truly sickening to me. I felt like I had fallen in with a Nazi cult. Every fiber of my being rebelled.

And the reason for this policy of whitewashing is that, despite the fact that Thomas Lifson assembles some of the best conservative writing on the Net, he is terrified of being squelched by the Obama government. And so all of the comments are scrubbed to be as anodyne as possible.

I lost such respect for Lifson once I got a look inside that operation. It is craven, mean-spirited, dishonest and essentially a propaganda arm. I, too, was banned not long after I quit as a moderator.

Such a disappointment.

JimP| 11.18.10 @ 1:40PM

Wow. Even worse than my "paranoid" mind imagined. Thanks even more for having the courage and integrity to share this info.

Best regards.

Anthony| 11.18.10 @ 1:51PM

Wow, thanks Grzmlyk, I'm glad I stumbled onto this discussion of AT. For reasons never explained, despite my many inquiries, AT has shut me off as well. I cannot even log into the comment section.
I even offered an article to AT some years ago that Lifson liked, but ultimately deemed to be too long. I was thinking I was a complete misfit for having been summarily shut off w/o explaination, but apparently I am not alone. Whew!! my self esteem is restored!!! I'm in good company.
Can anybody elaborate more on this AT comment section sensorship policy?

Grzmlyk| 11.18.10 @ 2:35PM

Yeah, I can't log in anymore either. Immediately after I resigned - and I did it with no rancor (I WAS always busy at the time) - I was shut out.

I'm not sure how hands-on Lifson is - whether he knows the extent of the shenanigans going on with the Comments section - like most tyrants, the chief moderator likes to lord her power over those she deems beneath her, but kisses the asses of those she deems above her - and she worships Lifson because he returns her emails.

I think he is ill served not only by her, but by this philosophy - which, again, is all the stranger given how refreshingly, brutally, and honestly conservative pretty much all of the article writers are. It really doesn't make sense to me.

When I was working among them, they were trying to ramp up on the number of moderators - people who could sign into the "master" web site and approve or deny - or edit - comments, whether it be for 15 minutes at a time or all day.

There were well over a dozen such moderators- but, as is typical with these things, there were three or four stalwarts who considered themselves king bees.

I literally saw one email exchange among moderators where one of them had deleted a comment and, when another moderator asked why, he/she responded with something like, "who knows how someobody might interpret his comment and then how they might respond? We can't let that happen."

I believe that was my "aha" moment. I had been uncomfortable for the entire two weeks or so I had the special password - and in that time I had been pretty bad about logging in and actually doing any moderating. But once I read that - and realized the extent to which that little club was a preening echo chamber, I knew that this little self-apointed clique was exactly opposite of my principles; they may have spouted conservative platitudes, but their behavior spoke volumes about who they really were.

Anthony| 11.18.10 @ 2:54PM

Yeah, but I still read the AT readers section and find comments far more acerbic and vulger then I ever would have posted. I cannot distinguish the differences that got me kicked off the comment page.
Grzm, how did they contact you to be a moderator? I was completely unaware of this entire backstage operation. Whose brain-child was it?
You seem to think Lifson is unaware of his Nazi cabal, are you able to inform him of what's going on?

Grzmlyk| 11.18.10 @ 3:19PM

It's funny how I got started.

I wrote a scathing comment about something Robin of Berkeley had written; I believed Robin was a phony, since she had been a die-hard liberal for, like, 40 years - and then suddenly embraced every single conservative principle so thoroughly and articulately that it just smelled wrong. She was like a divine appartion, a perfectly-formed conservative that just appeared out of liberal mythology.

It was too perfect, and her arguments were too polished and suspiciously seemed to scratch every itch a conservative has when it comes to what we'd like liberals to understand. It was like she was the perfect convert, a St. Paul who had had a "road to Damascus" moment. I smelled a rat.

Well, my comment disappeared after about 10 minutes, and I wrote to Lifson to complain about that - I believe it was just the email address they post on the site. I couldn't believe they'd delete my comment - which was strongly worded, but not abusive.

He actually wrote back to me assuring me that Robin of Berkeley does exist, that she's a friend of his and he's physically been in her company several times.

I wrote him back apologizing and relenting - I mean, if he saw her in the flesh, I had to have been wrong, and so I felt chagrined that I questioned the site's integrity - and I didn't want to be banned, either.

But I should have realized right then and there - he was authorizing the deletion of comments that called into question the integrity of one of his stable of writers - and a friend.

A day or so later, I got an email from the chief moderator, who told me she shared my suspicions about Robin and she asked me if I was interested in being a contributor to the moderating team. Well, I was flattered and somewhat mollified that my suspicions were shared (although many posters on the site shared that suspicion).

She filled me in on the rules and I sat in on a couple of the virtual meetings; one thing that killed me was the volume of emails that went back and forth among the moderators, with everybody constantly hitting "reply all." That alone turned me off of the gig. It was ridiculous - all this busy work, this self-important nudgeing, and for what? To alter people's thoughts. Disgusting. I have no problem with deleting outright threats or spam or otherwise egregious content, but that's not what this was about - that became clear very quickly.

The behind-the-back vitriol about Robin of Berkeley continued from the moderator, although I had stopped denigrating Robin. I certainly had no proof that Robin was a phony, and in any case, I had agreed to take Thomas at his word.

So while I give Thomas the benefit of the doubt - I just don't want to believe such a beacon of conservative views would kneecap his own conservative audience that way - I have to say, he's the guy, the head honcho, and I'm sure he does know about - and approves - the ongoing whitewashing.

JimP| 11.18.10 @ 5:48PM

Any ideas on how criticizing 'Robin' would get Obama and the gang on AT's back? I don't see any connection at all. LOL and I thought I was being paranoid.

JimP| 11.18.10 @ 5:53PM

Cancel my last comment. Obviously, except to me- duh, if she's a friend they don't want HER criticized.

eyespoppin'outomyhead| 11.18.10 @ 6:30PM

well, isn't this just fascinating?

Anthony| 11.18.10 @ 9:21PM

Grzm, thanks for the background. Interesting, very interesting. You make Lifson sound so unlike what I perceived him to be. Intrigue at AT, wow.
I remember Robin of Berkeley to.

Grzmlyk| 11.18.10 @ 3:35PM

BTW, I think one reason it's so inconsistent as to why some comments are deleted, some are edited and others are left to run "as is" has to do with the number of moderators in the stable and who's evaluating which comments. It's very much an "in the eye of the beholder" thing - which is another reason I hated it. The standards were ever-changing and always expanding in terms of what we could meddle in. Again, once I realized that, red flags went off.

Conservatives aren't supposed to believe in subjective morality or in treating some people as "more equal" than others. It was exactly the kind of tyranny that I hold responsible for ruining this country.

Yorktown Bob| 11.18.10 @ 11:38PM

I could have written everything Grzm wrote. Wow. I think I lasted about 11 days as a mod at AT. The head mod is just as G describes--power-hungry, vindictive, paranoid, etc. Although I didn't quit--was about to when I was actually fired. I approved a message that recommended buying seeds and gold. The head mod said the poster was a "revolutionary" and they couldn't have comments like that on the site or else the gubmint STs would be busting down ol' Tom Lifson's door. When I disagreed and explained my reasons for approving I was immediately stripped of mod privileges and the head mod would not even answer her phone when I called her. She finally sent me an email and accused me of being a revolutionary too. She saw a revolutionary behind every home garden or 1/2 0z gold coin it seemed. Oh well.

Everything was just how G described. In fact, I read some of his comments to my wife and she was like, "wow you said the same thing about AT when you got fired!"

I don't know if I've been banned or not as I don't go there much and if I do I don't even bother to post comments. Just nice to know I'm not the only one out there who scratched my head about those guys over at AT.

Grzmlyk| 11.19.10 @ 1:17AM

Hi Yorktown Bob:

I know it's late, but I was just checking and and saw your post.

Wow - it's very nice on my end, too, to get corroboration of that trip through the carnival fun house. I thought for my first days involved there that I must be friggin' crazy - because if I'm not, THEY are.

I won't use her name in this public forum, but the chief mod was sooooo nice and welcoming to me at first; almost TOOO nice. She sent me long emails about her life (and, in retrospect, there were red flags there).

Then she launched into several unsolicited, vicious things about Robin of Berkeley - behind Thomas's back, mind you. I guess that's what "attracted" her to me - my initial scepticism about Robin's authenticity.

I mean, I was willing to let the issue drop. But she sent me several little emails with new gripes and very catty things about Robin - I mean the hatred was palpable (I think she was jealous of Robin's peer-relationship with Thomas).

Even if Robin WERE a phony - and I'm still not sure one way or another - it's not really germane to the moderators' function - let it go, woman.

But, once I got a load of her little gaggle of sycophants, and the culture she was establishing, I realized what I was dealing with.

I went from flattered - when she first asked me to join - to surprise, to shock to annoyance, to moral outrage, to disgust to abhorrence in about the same 11 days it took you to be jettisoned.

Weird little cult, eh? I felt gulty for opting out so soon. But once I was out, I never looked back.

Yorktown Bob| 11.19.10 @ 11:25AM

Wow that pretty much parallels my experience with the head mod. After she asked me to be a mod she called me and was soooooo sugary sweet nice. And like you she would send me unsolicited emails just to kinda chit-chat and stuff.

But what a different story when I disagreed with her on the comment I approved. Holy smokes. The comment was so benign to begin with and it literally ended with something like "start buying seeds and gold folks." Her rational was folks who buy seeds and gold also buy guns, and they probably want to overthrow the govt, so we can't have that kinda talk. Like you said, they try to divine what is in someone's heart and mind instead of just taking the comment at face value.

The ironic thing was the comment was replying to the "ruling class vs country class" editorial by Codevilla that had a TON more revolutionary talk in it than any comment had. When I tried to make the point to her that the comment was less severe than the actual editorial that's when I got my mod status yanked and became persona non grata there.

But yeah, I remember my 11 days or so there (after going through my inbox) thinking more than once that either these people are crazy or I am. Haha!

Barbara| 11.18.10 @ 11:41PM

Wondered why they'd never heard from me and wouldn't send me a new password. I never posted anything controversial or unpleasant on their site but... Certainly won't give them as link on anyone else's site after reading this! Thanks.

Stammon| 11.18.10 @ 10:25AM

Yes motherhubbard, watch those videos, tell me you think this is right.

Mel Torme| 11.18.10 @ 10:29AM

I hope you get the civility you desire, Ed White, when you spend the last 30 years of your life in some type of Gulag.

First rule of the Gulag: Mind your manners. Second rule of the Gulag: Nobody gets to rape Ed White besides Mr. Tyrell and the head of Motherland Security.
Third rule of the Gulag: You DO NOT WRITE about the rules of the Gulag, unless you are civil about it.

Stammon| 11.18.10 @ 12:08PM

Mr White;
And another thing;
How about you go straight to he double L. You are totally self absorbed. It's all you , all the time. There is NO reason to body search a 3 year old. And you know it. You do sir. You lie to yourself.

JimP| 11.18.10 @ 1:04PM

Personally Ed, I like the rough and tumble give and take. I find many people's comments very humorous and in almost all cases I find that conservatives only skewer people deserving of it. My observation has been that typically only trolls or hacks get rough treatment and only after they provoke it with ungentlemanly, immature behavior themselves.

Sam Vaughn| 11.18.10 @ 2:55PM

Edward, I've been observing this board for a long time. It wasn't until "leftists" found this board and starting showing up calling the readers dumb, ignorant, gun-toting, racsits, bigoted, ditto heads that I noticed any insults. The liberals who show up and debate honestly invariably are treated in kind. Your last comment tells me that you are not a conservative and in fact think that all conservatives are dumb. In the end liberals accuse any disagreement as an insult. It makes me glad you are insulted. It means debate is alive and well....

DISTRICT| 11.18.10 @ 3:30PM

Mr. White,
Is there such a thing as a sensible pat down?
It would seem the question deserves a bit more thought in the context of children being told not to allow strangers to touch them, but then we add the caveat, unless they work for the government. Seems as though we degrade our own Constitution and laws by doing so. Further, this would then lead us to additionally revise all of our civics and law classes to state the unlawful search and seizure is sensible under certain circumstances.
I would opine that Drudge, Limbaugh and the like are all distractions from the point. Our republic is dying, and in desperate need of help. Our country was unique in a world of monarchies and authoritarian rule; now this is all coming to pass.
I find this concept very sad, and hope we can turn it around before these changes erase the collective memory of the current generation regarding personal freedom.

old white guy| 11.18.10 @ 4:13PM

bullshit

carnot| 11.21.10 @ 9:53PM

"implying"?!!!!! bahahahahahahaha

hey...you raised the issue.

mames| 11.18.10 @ 11:56AM

Beneath your dignity Mr. Tyrrell. I got the humor but referencing Palin was disgusting. What have you been smokin' down there in Indiana, surely not corn silk. You are in way over your head on this one. Human intel is indeed what is needed and that should take place at least 1 mile away from the airport itself - ala Israel. You sound like a raving neo-con.

Willey| 11.18.10 @ 4:00PM

I agree: Tyrrell's comment regarding Palin was disgusting. I think Bob's lost his mind or has gone senile.

Tyrrell's article was posted on another site and one of the commenters was so annoyed about the gratuitous Palin remark he said he hoped Todd Palin would beat the snot out of Bob for it. lol

Ron Wieder| 11.18.10 @ 2:15PM

I agree ! If Israel, far more security-minded than we are, uses observation and conversation in preference to gadgetry that says a lot. George Soros got rid of thousands of stock shares in the body-scan company as soon as he heard about the uproar ! AND good old former security ghuru Chertok was the one who gave the contract to make the units to an old friend of his ! Wonderful- The biggies make money while we all get felt up by bored high school drop-outs ! And THAT is security ?

DISTRICT| 11.18.10 @ 3:18PM

Ron,
Please also keep in mind that the individuals you mentioned fly on private jets (in Chertoff's case it is usually the contractor's jet). They would not need to go through the process as a result.
Best...

Occam's Tool| 11.18.10 @ 4:20PM

I was listening to Ann Coulter being harassed on Hannity last night by some idiot Liberal, who kept on asking what could work as opposed to Xrays (cumulative effect) and pat downs (useless)< She did not give the correct answer, but she was frustrated. The correct answer is El Al's approach. We are at war; so is Israel, with the same people. El Al has not been successfully attacked since 1968. The Entebbe hostage situation involved Air France.

By the way, Mr. Tyrell, the pat downers are to be same sex. Sorry, boss.

Beth| 11.18.10 @ 4:29PM

Ann tried to answer that idiot, but the satellite delay kept tripping her up. What an ambush!

Hannity was a real jerk to her--wonder if she will come on his show again.

Grzmlyk| 11.18.10 @ 4:58PM

Agreed, Beth - sometimes Hannity's mind seems to be off in the clouds (maybe he's practicing his ridiculous gestures); he basically ignored her complaints. Maybe he likes the cross talk, which is an obnoxious trait at Fox News.

But with Ann Coulter, who shows him more respect than he deserves, it made him look like more of a jerk than usual.

DISTRICT| 11.18.10 @ 3:11PM

Your comment seems tough, but more reasonable than either the current methods or the views in this article.
First of all, how many current TSA employees look like Sarah Palin? Second, even if they all did, has the editor forgotten the Constitution. It was written by a society under the pressures of war, yet it kept the citizen's free.
Total security is a total fallacy. Anything we can create to secure us, can be fooled or used against us. The concept of total security follows the concept of "cradle - to - grave" care, common amongst liberal thinkers. This is not what I would expect from the American Spectator.
As a father and husband, I care deep enough to protect my family from illegal search and seizure, as much as I do any foe who would attempt to physically harm my family (e.g. a bomber).
This current incarnation of the government (the TSA) is anti-American and anti-self determination. We are all adults and know the risks of travel (e.g. being hit by a bus or being kidnapped in the Lockerbee instance). Let us be in charge of our own destiny.

DISTRICT| 11.18.10 @ 3:15PM

Meant to write citizens, not citizen's (as if it were to be followed by freedom).
My apologies on the typo.
Lastly, why did Napolitano avoid the scanner in the unveiling in New York City. I know from yesterday she claims to have been scanned, but in the first instance (NYC) she had others volunteer to walk through the device for her. Seems odd.

Peter| 11.18.10 @ 9:54PM

Since day 9/12/2001, we have tried to reinvent the wheel when it comes to airport security, All we need to do is adopt the Israeli EL-AL model.
INTERVIEW!!!!

This reliance on technology will cost a fortune and endup getting people killed, it's a great incentive for Ocean liners and trains

Bob Knutson| 11.19.10 @ 12:16AM

Mr. Tyyrell is absolutely right. We have to live like the Israelis. Profile the Bustards and weed out the possibles and probables. Little children and old ladies or well-dressed, elderly gentlemen with round-trip tickets are not the problem,(I speak here from experience). Get the country off of this horrible, politically correct nonsense and do what needs to be done, PROFILE!!!

T H Huxley| 11.19.10 @ 12:54AM

Now that the TSA is conducting pat-downs, does that mean Larry Craig's cashing in his frequent flier miles?

Wayne | 11.19.10 @ 1:14AM

I am trying to figure out what this assault has to do with safety. I can't. It is certainly not the action a free society tolerates. I guess that is why I am more libertarian than conservative. I value personal freedom and I never would tell people the don't have to fly. I don't think we need a TSA at all. It is a waste of tax payer money and our time.

T H Huxley| 11.19.10 @ 11:38PM

Are you a right winger who's actually for the Bill of Rights? All of 'em, including opposition to warrantless wiretaps? I could respect that.

carnot| 11.21.10 @ 9:57PM

depends on which judge is "interpreting" those rights.

Bill| 11.19.10 @ 8:51PM

Mark Steyn is exactly right. This TSA effort will fail because they are looking for THINGS, not terrorists. TSA is an agency run amok in a government run amok. Look for terrorists, you might be surprised by what you find.

carnot| 11.21.10 @ 9:59PM

cmon...don't you recognize what it is really all about? 16,000 to 60,000+ TSA folks since 9/11. get it now?

AZ desert rat| 11.21.10 @ 1:08PM

Hey, Tyrell, you've been trapped in the Beltway too long. To begin with, Israel doesn't "pat' or scan; Israel profiles & it works. Further, when you have dental x-rays the hygienist gives you a protective apron to offset the exposure to radiation (not to mention, that dental x-rays are an annual event; ask your dentist why). Americans who want to or have to travel are transformed into suspects by the TSA. Why? The Ruling Class and their allies, the Islamofacists are showing their contempt for the Country Class yet again, in the most intrusive & humiliating manner to date. There are numerous bank robberies every day. By your logic, it would be appropriate to search all bank employees & customers whenever they enter. Perhaps it's time for you to consider an early retirement. Love ya, Drudge!

Appleby| 11.18.10 @ 6:42AM

Personally I have decided that when I go to Florida for the 12 Hours of Sebring, assuming I cannot catch a ride with any of the 500,000 people driving (who are far more paranoid about sharing their cars than they are about nekkid body scans, by the way), I will take the train. Terrorists do not know that there is absolutely no security of any kind when you travel by train. Fortunately I did all my flying when I was young and only Africa was dangerous. No more cross-border flying for me, thanks.

R Martin| 11.18.10 @ 9:05AM

If I were going to Sebring I'd gladly give you a ride. But I'm not. I'm going to the Goodwood Revival next September as a birthday gift from my son. Does the QE2 still do crossings?

Mark1957| 11.18.10 @ 9:14AM

"Does the QE2 still do crossings?"

No, it only devalues currency.

Boomerbabe| 11.18.10 @ 8:49PM

The QE2 goes from New York to Liverpool in the summer. 5 days. We were hoping to give a gift of a honeymoon to my daughter and her British husband for their trip back to England after the wedding, but it is too expensive. So, they'll just have to be groped

Boomerbabe| 11.18.10 @ 8:49PM

The QE2 goes from New York to Liverpool in the summer. 5 days. We were hoping to give a gift of a honeymoon to my daughter and her British husband for their trip back to England after the wedding, but it is too expensive. So, they'll just have to be groped

carnot| 11.21.10 @ 10:01PM

now that's downright funny!!!! and clever.

Appleby| 11.18.10 @ 2:53PM

I am going to Goodwood one of these days, and I am going in 40s costume too. Dressed in the style of the 40s I look quite a lot like Lauren Bacall in "Murder on the Orient Express". I only hope there are no Peugeots or Peugeot drivers there.

DLB| 11.18.10 @ 6:43AM

Some day soon a terrorist will get caught with a bomb shoved up deep in his keister, where the body scanner can't see it. Afterwards, no American will be ever able to board a plane again without first undergoing a full colonoscopy performed by a high-school dropout.

The Bishop| 11.18.10 @ 8:49AM

DLB, thank you for giving me the first laugh of the day. I'll never be able to look at a colonoscopy in the same way.

Douglas| 11.18.10 @ 9:28AM

You are absolutely correct. They already did thing in Saudi Arabia. Ann Coulter pointed that out this morning.

Maybe the author of this article would like the new government checks for that. He would have no problem since his head appears to be in the way of that check.

carnot| 11.21.10 @ 10:02PM

we're already taking it up the shoot from this Congress and this President.

beebop| 11.18.10 @ 7:02AM

Let's see.

"Intrusive" body scanner or "humiliating" pat down versus identifying the remains of my sister or either one of her darling daughters?

Seems like a pretty clear cut choice.

But hey. That's just me.

ekgeen| 11.18.10 @ 9:04AM

Hitler would have loved you. Governments that want to increase their control over the people know just how to steer them where they want them. As you watch some stranger grope your darling daughters, then realize that your life is an illusion void of freedom and dignity.

Malcolmia| 11.18.10 @ 9:41AM

The Hitler reference prods me to recall a vivid impression I have always held of the insane genius of the man. Having his captors naked totally defeated their spirits and made them compliant to the point of marching into death. Where do we march?

Big Sis| 11.18.10 @ 10:31AM

I'll let you know, when it's time for you to know!

Now, sit down and read the comments by the nice men, Bob and Ed.

ekgeen| 11.18.10 @ 12:36PM

Malcolmia, I just read the book, "The Hiding Place." In the true account, one of the most demoralizing things the sisters endured was having to walk totally naked in from of the jeering german guards. I ask the good people of this forum, how is the TSA experience any different? How many of you are guilty terrorist that deserve such treatment?

Jesus Pleaseus!| 11.18.10 @ 6:37PM

Ekgeen, the absurdity of your comparison leaves me stunned.

I cannot read any more of this insanity. God Almighty! Are all of you complete crackpots!

You make me sick.

Jesus Pleaseus!

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 7:20PM

Almost as absurd as you liberals screaming BusHitler for 8 years? You're the real Nazis. Hypocrite.

You freaks made me want to vomit a long time ago.

beebop| 11.18.10 @ 7:43PM

You didn't read my post -- if you had you'd realize that I was speaking of my SISTER'S daughters.

Please do as you wish.

Grasp your "junk" and defend your privacy. As for me, I'd like to have a modicum of sense of safety. You call it hitler because that is the most INSANE comparison you can make.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 7:46PM

You're so stupid! These fascist security policies don't make you safe. That's our whole point, if you would bother to read our posts.

carnot| 11.21.10 @ 10:07PM

bingo.

at a more abstract level it ignores two other common sense observations:

- the relevant question is what set of security policies and implementing solutions is best (or at least better)

- the actions of the administration IRT airline travel security have always been reactionary. rather like intrusion detection signatures...they do nothing to detect the next "zero day" terrorist attack

Dustoff| 11.18.10 @ 12:54PM

The problem with your statement. If one of these jerks has the bomb inside his body. Your sister would still be dead.

Were told, it's is for the children, now it's doing it to the children.

Radegunda| 11.18.10 @ 1:02PM

How about the government focuses its intrusive and humiliating exams on people who present a smidgeon of cause for suspicion? Doesn't it bother you that they're wasting so much effort and aggravating so many people by groping those who are not remotely likely to be terrorists?

The Millennium Bomber was caught trying to cross over from Canada because a customs agent noticed his shifty behavior. One customs agent using her eyes and brain, and doing some good old-fashioned profiling, has caught more potential terrorists than all the TSA screeners combined.

Appleby| 11.18.10 @ 2:58PM

And remember, the Millenium Bomber was MISSED by the Canadians.

My sister and I crossed at the Ambassador Bridge (Detroit/Windsor) the week after 9/11/01 and on the American side we were stopped by the National Guard, and our little sports car was searched and our papers examined and we were asked searching questions. We were happy to answer them and comforted to see our men on guard. Coming back the next week, we crossed at the same point and the bored little girl in the Canadian Customs booth barely looked up from her magazine to ask, "Any cigarettes, liquor or firearms?" We two middle-aged women looked at each other and swallowed the answer we wanted to give, and said, "No ma'am." and without stirring a muscle, she went back to her comic book.

I will never forget those two scenes and to me they say it all.

Willey| 11.18.10 @ 4:04PM

People who will trade their freedom for security get neither. Benjamin Franklin was right.

Occam's Tool| 11.18.10 @ 4:26PM

You would be correct, beebee, except for two things: 1) it's not an either/or approach. The Israelis don't do pat downs like that. 2) Nothing TSA has tried has resulted in improved safety. The bad guys still come through our approach, and it gets more intrusive and annoying because we are forbidden the efficient approach by the ACLU. If the body scanner uses radiation and you are a frequent flyer, that's a problem.

However, the Israelis have not had an attack on their airline in over 40 years. That's the Yom Kippur war, the 1st and second Lebanon wars, the intifadas, etc. Maybe we should learn from the best?

Polite comments, though, bee bop. Thanks.

brewpop| 11.18.10 @ 7:07AM

Mr. Tyrrell, I'm hoping your column is "tongue in cheek." My instincts regarding how Americans view this latest invasion into their privacy is totally opposite to your thesis. I've experienced the Israeli pat-down in Tel Aviv. While I understood the reason for the procedure it was still most degrading and invasive. So, as a 74 year old, grump grandfather I suggest you take a big deep breath and contemplate the conservative principles you normally write so well about.

Nancy in NC| 11.18.10 @ 7:07AM

So what would be the next freedom you would be willing to give up for the illusion of security?

The terrorist win every time we suffer these indignities. We have allowed them to control us every time we step through the screening procedure.

Intelligence (and yes, profiling) will actually make us safer. The reactive theories are too little, too late.

"When you sacrifice liberty for security, you have neither."

ekgeen| 11.18.10 @ 9:07AM

I agree! Where does all this end? I know - the government will just monitor everything that you do, so that if you decide to fly one day, they will have an extensive file.

Cheeseburger in Paradise| 11.18.10 @ 9:24AM

Well said Nancy

darcy| 11.18.10 @ 6:04PM

It seems to me that since the administration refuses even to use the term terrorist, let alone Muslim terrorist, and that certain Muslims --women in Burqas -- may be deemed exempt from these "enhanced" procedures, that something beyond mere security screening is afoot.

Whatever my own ideas may be as to what that is, I do want to say to Mr. Tyrrell that his instincts on this issue -- as he relates here -- disappoint me in the extreme. A nation's notion of common decency is herewith jettisoned (not to mention our 4th Amendment protections FROM INTRUSIVE GOVERNMENT), and all Emmett can do is look on the bright side, failing entirely to see the sinister implications of such invasive measures.

How exactly does one spell "dhimmi"?

Kenny| 11.18.10 @ 7:07AM

Mr. Tyrrell, if you watched Glenn Beck last night, you see what are probably the real reqasons for those naked body scanners and fondling frisks. Hint: it has little, if nothing, to do with preventing Islamic terrorism.

By the way, if you want to secure the airlines , then profile. And start with ever Muslim. But oh no, politically correct Washington will never do that. Instead lets treat every American as a suspect murder.

Viva Drudge.

Bill Onesty| 11.18.10 @ 7:10AM

But Mr. Tyner is now being threatened with an $10,000 fine for not going through with the security procedure. How in the world is that protecting anyone?

Barbara| 11.18.10 @ 11:48PM

You're nominated to serve on his jury!
Think the government is dumb enough to prosecute? Yes, see Ghailani.

c. j. acworth| 11.18.10 @ 7:15AM

It does seem a little funny that a people who have largely given up the very idea of modesty in dress are afraid to expose their "junk" to a faceless security type sitting in an entirely separate room. The real question is, do the scanners actually give more security? I believe El Al doesn't use them at all, and they have a 30 year record of safety. Could it be that they know something we don't? Koff, koff, (PROFILING), koff.

rjh| 11.18.10 @ 7:25AM

Mr. Tyrrell, I am deeply disappointed by this article, and I must say you totally miss the point. Do you actually mean to say that the citizens of this country should give up their fourth amendment rights just because some unelected bureaucrat decrees it so? This from a government that refuses to even identify our enemy? Where do we draw the line? Or do we just merely continue to meekly submit as our rights are taken away and as our country disappears before our eyes? As a, thankfully, retired airline pilot, I could have predicted that the TSA would de3enerate to this level after observing it in action on a daily basis. It was an act of pure political cowardice when Bush allowed the TSA and DHS to come into existence. The proper course of action would have been to fire the appropriate inept appointees, and to reign in the already existing out of control bureaucracies. Instead, he created yet another DC zombie. I did not serve twenty four years in the military so that I, my family, or anyone else could be groped by some barely qualified government lackey at the direction of an even more unqualified political appointee. I correct my previous statement. I am not disappointed in your article, I am revolted by it.

Paul| 11.18.10 @ 9:00AM

AMEN!

ekgeen| 11.18.10 @ 9:10AM

Hear, Hear - what kind of freedom site is this anyway?

CHHR| 11.18.10 @ 9:32AM

I DITTO the Amen! BTW: you forgot to add soon to be unionized high school drop-out. SEIU all the way!

What's really interesting is that such scans in the medical field must be read by licensed and practicing doctors of radiology and they must certify those results. Funny, I didn't notice an educational increase in requirements for those soon to be unionized, low skilled, TSA agents. May be that will be the first order of business for SEIU? Yea right.

Sandy| 11.19.10 @ 8:31PM

I agree wholeheartedly. Furthermore, I have no truck with CBS polls. Neither should you, Mr. Tyrell. Were your readers polled, the results would have been quite different.

potkas7| 11.18.10 @ 7:42AM

Has there been even a single instance of the TSA stopping a bomber at a security checkpoint? I don't think so. How many successful prosecutions have been brought against terrorists? I don't know of any.

I once asked the security team at the departure gate at Schipol in Amsterdam what sort of checks they ran on the shampoo and shaving cream they were confiscating to see if they had, in fact, intercepted any liquid explosives. The answer. "We don't check it, we just throw it away."

This is not security. This is madness!

Louis Jenkins| 11.18.10 @ 7:46AM

"We are at war with savages who sneak explosives onto airplanes and turn them into bombs. "

That's the problem. Target everyone, not the savages who can be readily identified.

Old Soldier| 11.18.10 @ 8:20AM

My thoughts exactly. Control WHO gets on the plane, not WHAT.

Why not seek to identify the terrorists? Instead they molest everyone else for the cause of PC "fairness."

Willis| 11.18.10 @ 8:49AM

Exactly. Just make a large poster as a point of reference for each TSA manned departure gate. On it place the images of the 9/11 hijackers, the Times Square bomber, the Fort Hood shooter, the underwear bomber, the London bus bombers etc., and below the pictures, in big block letters, write these words: "LOOK FOR GUYS LIKE THESE".

Paul| 11.18.10 @ 9:01AM

AWESOME!

Mel Torme| 11.18.10 @ 10:34AM

You rock, Willis! Here, I've made about 10 comments, but nothing to beat what you just wrote.

RCV| 11.18.10 @ 12:30PM

I have to agree with you on the basic issue here. The head of Israeli security was once asked why his country's airport security was so effective. His answer: "We look for the bomber, not the bomb".

Todd S| 11.18.10 @ 1:12PM

Never thought I would see the day where I would agree with RCV and disagree with the founder of American Spectator but here we are. People would not be upset about these security procedures if we actually believed they made us safer but the videos of these brain dead TSA workers harassing 3 year-olds and nuns speaks for itself. And I have yet to see any video of an actual Muslim having to undergo such invasive procedures, wouldn't want to upset CAIR would we Big Sis?

RCV| 11.18.10 @ 1:51PM

And it's not that the Israelis are just unthinkingly harassing every Arab. The last time I was leaving Israel after visiting some friends in Tel Aviv, I happened to be traveling on my own since my wife couldn't get away for this trip. I had no tourist books with me or any hotel receipts either. Israeli security grilled me for about two and a half hours, and rightly so. They finally tracked down my friends at their work, confirmed I had stayed with them and were satisfied only because the husband of the couple I stayed with was a former fighter pilot with the IDF. And you know what? I wasn't offended for a moment, because everything they did was logical and based on objective criteria that made sense for their security. It's much more annoying to me to have to take off my belt, shoes and wristwatch and have my kids go through xray machines every time we fly, which is often, simply because our TAS does virtually nothing to insure actual airline security.

JKS| 11.18.10 @ 2:01PM

Hell hath frozen over as we are in the same ice-bound boat....

Occam's Tool| 11.18.10 @ 4:29PM

Correct, RCV. You know, I don't often agree with you, but I would rather disagree with you or Alan than someone like Tim*, don't you think?

RCV| 11.19.10 @ 1:45AM

It's definitely more rewarding to have a civil disagreement on issues than listen to that juvenile rant like a tweve year old.

Judy| 11.19.10 @ 7:23PM

Or an agreement with a Fascist Liberal troll like you.

JohnD| 11.18.10 @ 7:49AM

I couldn't disagree more with this either. I have been following this issue. The scanners clearly show the size of male genitalia, they reveal sanitary napkins and tampons worn by female passengers, and one pilot referred to the machine as a "d&*k measuring device."

I have seen videos of a 3-year old girl screaming while a TSA goon basically molests her, grabbing her around her crotch and buttocks; read a story of a middle aged woman taking her 85-yr old mother to her sister's funeral on a plane, and watching her sobbing mother have her breasts lifted and fondled, and her crotch felt up by TSA personnel; -- this is not security, it is sexual assault.

I cannot imagine traveling with my 9 year old son by airplane and seeing him basically molested by federal agents.

This is the same TSA that puts guys named "Joe Smith" on the no-fly list, when "Joe Smith's" do not blow up planes, but rather Mohammed Abdul al-something or others do.

Muslims are trying to blow up the planes. Target them. We know who the enemy is - it is not 85-year old Swedish Lutheran blonde grandmothers; it is not 3 year old girls; it is not white-US born Christian Middle aged males.

As for the Christmas crotch bomber, the Government was WARNED by his own father he was a terrorist - hey, there's a place to start - when someone's father tells you his son is a terrorist, DON'T LET HIM ON THE PLANE!

The Bishop| 11.18.10 @ 8:56AM

I am in complete agreement, JohnD. Our family has a tradition that every three years grandpa (your's truly) and grandma fly all of our family from Indiana to Orlando for a week's holiday at Disney World. We have begun planning for next year's trip, but with this latest development taken into account, I'm left with the choices of driving everyone (add four days to the roundtrip), submitting to this outrageous invasion of privacy, or cancel the trip. I confess, I'm leaning to the latter. Not only is this unreasonable (and obscene) search, it is another government innovation that can damage commerce. It's all reactionary political correctness.

darcy| 11.18.10 @ 6:20PM

Given the clout big business has with big government, I would recommend you write -- should you cancel your travel plans -- to your hotelier and tell them why you're not coming.

Do mention that you endorse profiling -- though it is considered PC among the Left -- as a more effective means of actually stopping terrorists from boarding planes.

FastJohnny| 11.18.10 @ 7:51AM

"That is enough, but Mr. Tyner might keep things in perspective. America is at war."

No we're not. Haven't you been paying attention? According to our Lecturer-and-Chief, there is no war on terror, it's just a few misguided individuals. With this reasoning, why is TSA treating it like we are at war. I am so confused.

jjmurphy| 11.18.10 @ 7:51AM

I see by your bio that you are the founder of American Spectator. From your rather hysterical condemnation of people fighting a totally useless security system I would never have guessed you founded AS. Like some other commenters I kept waiting for the punchline where you actually would support individual efforts to fight tyranny.

Maybe you should read some of the articles published on your online site.

I am really disgusted with your take on this situation. You are no better than the thugs in government.

Curly Smith| 11.18.10 @ 7:51AM

You can either hire good people or you can buy technology. You can see the government approach with the TSA. The sad truth is that the long security lines, shoe removing, body imaging, pat downs, and soon to be cavity searches don't provide any security. They're intended to stop the last terrorist attempt that would have been stopped had the TSA followed their own "no fly" system. Next up, we must ground the planes to ensure the safety of the flying public and to prevent the greatest threat to mankind - global warming. Except, of course, for the private jets that will shuttle our politicians and celebrities to far away destinations to discuss measures to combat terrorism and global warming.

Paul| 11.18.10 @ 9:05AM

This sounds like TRUTH to me, I hope the author reads it.

Bob K.| 11.18.10 @ 7:53AM

Mr. Tyrrell,
You and your magazine have really changed since you left Indiana out there in fly over country for the big city in the fever swamp.

Jumped right into that big government culture with both feet didn't you?

TennesseeVolunteer| 11.18.10 @ 7:57AM

Mr. Tyrell, are you telling me you trust the same government that runs the post office?
That creates a tax code that creates so many inane rules that it costs me $5,000 a year to get my taxes done?
That calls ME a terrorist because I support the Tea Party?
That creates a huge bueracracy called the TSA that uses no common sense, sir, in ferreting out who might be dangerous?
Eight years ago, I saw a young Mom and her five year old daughter pulled out of a line in Florida because the Mom was the tenth person in line and brought over to be searched with a wand, not in privacy, but in a corner of the waiting area. The tears of that young girl and the absolute fury of that young Mom burned into my soul the insanity of a process that doesn't profile using the brain God gave you.
You have made a gross mistake in judgement Bob.

Peppermint Tea | 11.18.10 @ 12:05PM

Oh, but that Mom traveling with a five-year-old daughter was the next terrorist suspect---NOT.

RAMIII| 11.18.10 @ 1:16PM

TennesseeVolunteer -- Agreed!

Bob T. -- Were you using satire in your article?
Just wondering.

Occam's Tool| 11.18.10 @ 4:33PM

Tennessee, I couldn't agree with you more. I look Lebanese and my last name is a fairly common Lebanese American name, although I play for team Maccabee. I have watched situations where I have been able to easily board a plane while a grandmother in a wheelchair behind me has been frisked. Our security system has been designed by people allied with Ruth Bader Ginsberg to look like something Rube Goldberg would design. It's worthless.

darcy| 11.18.10 @ 6:33PM

Profiling requires an intelligent interrogator, as in people who actually think. The entire TSA staff would have to be overhauled, current employees fired and new hires brought on board to perform the task. Lots of reasons why that wouldn't go over well, least of which is the oodles of money being made by investors in scanning equipment.

Lots going on here, just below the surface. One thing I know for sure is this: we're not going to put up with having our daughters groped because the Left balks at profiling. And we're not going to stop flying.

Finally we have an issue that exposes the Left for the insanity it is and Mr. Tyrrell says, oh, let's just all get along. Very poorly done, Emmett. You failed the test, utterly.

Melvin| 11.18.10 @ 8:01AM

The old saying of follow the money probably would be prudent here. It is like everything else in government. A friend of a friend, a business associate of a friend, a brother-in-law who owns a x-ray imaging company that manufactures imaging machines. And all of a sudden !BAM! We have a governmental emergency and we need thousands of these machines and we don't care what they cost, because after-all government is in crisis mode.
Compound that with the stumblers, bumblers, and and the current government who wishes to protray to the world that Americans are truly the sphincter muscles of the world who couldn't find their own backsides with both hands tied behind their backs.
This will kill the American tourism industry because no one in their right mind would want to fly into this Country with some TSA Agent giving the flying public rim jobs.

You know America there was a day that we would mass together and march into an Airport rip that imaging machine from it's foundations and throw it in the dumpster, then turn to the TSA agents and march them off airport property and then tell the Airlines. "Now do your damn jobs and provide us with security and if you have any questions how to do it call El Al.

derekcrane| 11.18.10 @ 8:01AM

Bob, I have been a subscriber of The American Spectator and a reader of your column for 25 years and cannot remember a time when I disagreed with you more than your opinion on the new TSA policies. These "feel good" pat-downs and high tech scans are no deterrent to the determined Moslem bomber. They can only internalize their "junk" to foil the searches. The only policy that would work to deter these jihadists is profiling. All Moslems must be segregated for "advanced scrutiny," proctology if necessary.
Profiling illegal you say? Not necessarily. The TSA asserts that we give up our constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches when we enter an airport to board a plane. Fine. If this is true then profiling of members of a certain religion should pose no legal problems. The TSA can't have it both ways -- either you retain your rights at the airport, hence profiling is most likely illegal as are these highly invasive searches or you lose your rights and profiling and the searches are legal.

derekcrane| 11.18.10 @ 8:22AM

No, I'm not considering canceling my subscription to the great TAS.

Grzmlyk| 11.18.10 @ 8:33AM

Amen, Derek.

I guess Emmett likes totalitarianism in the name of "security. Lots of ill-trained, uneducated people making six figures and bloated with the full force of government behind them. What could go wrong?

Very disappointing, this stance from an ostensible conservatve.

As has been mentioned here, the motley patchwork of measures the TSA takes is risible - one terrorist tries one new tactic and suddenly we're all subjected to a whole new regimen of screening - on top of the last dozen regimens - to prevent that new tactic from working - so no liquids over three ounces, the shoe ritual, and now the pat-downs.

Emmett, will you happily submit to a cavity search when the next terrorist "kiesters" his explosives? What if the one after that swallows a balloon filled with nitro? Will you gleefully vomit for the TSA agents so they can be sure you haven't followed suit?

Maybe they should biopsy all breast implants to ensure they're really only silicone. But what happens if a terrorist has had his nose sliced off and then rebuilt with semtex?

It is incredibly disapointing to see an intelligent conservative support this insanity.

As has been pointed out, El Al doesn't need to go through this kabuki theater because they PROFILE.

Yes, that's politically incorrect, as are many sane policies.

I'll say it again: PROFILE.

Got it?

Or, when you see Betty White being frisked like a drug dealer on COPS, do you get a thrill up your leg? Ah, yes: Nothing says American Freedom like having a uniformed brute stick his finger up your ass.

TexasEngineer| 11.18.10 @ 8:04AM

Follow the El Al example...they've never had an issue.
When a red-headed, red-bearded, 50+ year old Texan gets searched while three 20-something Muslim Arabs get a pass, you've gone from ridiculous to sublime.

PROFILING IS THE ONLY WAY.

russel| 11.18.10 @ 8:25AM

100 % correct . Much ado about your body as if you're Pelosi . I've seen documentaries on airline disasters and can't think of a worse way to go . Our problem is that PC won't allow profiling , it's that simple . You profile and CAIR is all over you . The other problem is that these terrorist's are mainly flying IN , not out . We don't have any control of that end of the security .

Grzmlyk| 11.18.10 @ 8:38AM

Yeah, but CAIR's going to get an exemption from these new procedures. And because we haven't sufficiently apologized yet for 19 Muslims killing 3,000 of our citizens on 09/11, we will happily grant it.

That's right - in order to avoid terrorism that is 99.9% Muslim oriented, we will exempt all Muslims. Why? So the fools who fly will feel "secure" when they see a three year old groped and won't notice Muhammad and Abdul sailing past the security checkpoint.

Career Soldier| 11.18.10 @ 8:30AM

Mr Tyrrell,

Your article screams "I'm scared, I'm scared, big government protect me!

If the basic goal of the terrorists is to cause terror in their enemies, seems to me that in your mind they have already won.

Dog Boy| 11.18.10 @ 8:36AM

Golly Gee Mr. Tyrrell - I think you position is incorrect. Pointing to another one of Matt Drudge's headlines - he states correctly that the terrorists HAVE WON - because the US government has become their proxy in many ways. The US government is a growing enemy to freedom, individual industry and personal liberty

Who wrote this crap?| 11.18.10 @ 8:36AM

I can't believe this came from Mr. Tyrrell. The TSA is quickly becoming the US Postal Service of national security, and it's getting worse by the day, particularly with goons like Napolitano at the helm. It's enormously costly and inefficient and stupid (and about a thousand other unflattering adjectives), and Mr. Tyrrell's willing to cede it ever increasing powers to intrude into our bodies and our lives? Give me a break. Put airline security where it belongs -- in the hands of their airlines themselves. At least then, if I feel my dignity has been assaulted, I have someone to complain to without the threat of a $10,000 fine. Sure, that makes air fares rise -- which puts the cost of airline security exactly where it belongs: on fliers. If this is seriously Mr. Tyrrell's brand of "conservativism," then I want not part of it.

Who wrote this crap?| 11.18.10 @ 8:38AM

... no part of it. Excuse me.

Freddy| 11.18.10 @ 8:49AM

I favor the idea of bomb-sniffing dogs. I bet Abdul might think twice before stuffing his drawers with explosives when he comes face to face with a 125lb Rottweiler snarling at his junk

ekgeen| 11.18.10 @ 9:23AM

Freddy, don't you know - muslims do not like dogs - thus you will never see a muslim offended by the government. The government prefers to degrade your grandmother, wife and children while you have to watch (your dignity has been assaulted).

darcy| 11.18.10 @ 6:56PM

Oh, no, we can't offend Muslims. But all others are fair game.

Where's my hatchet?

propercharlie| 11.18.10 @ 3:11PM

Why not bomb-sniffing pigs?

Judy| 11.18.10 @ 8:56AM

Look Tyrell, I don`t want my child passing through radiation, nor do I want my child being felt up by a stranger whether it`s a man or a woman. Big Sis` comment about same sex TSA agents was a joke.

Yesterday watching Pistole on TV, he looked like a cardboard cut out, no emotion and very flat facial expressions - total unfeeling bureaucrat.

I love how they changed the regulation that only kids over 13 will be screened.......hmmmmm......just around the time little girls are developing.

Defund the TSA now!

John Navratil| 11.18.10 @ 10:14AM

No need to defund the TSA, although that is the ultimate goal. The airports can simply opt out and go private (San Francisco, I understand, doesn't use the TSA). There are firms which are already certified to do this work.

It's time to get the cities, for which these airports are profit centers, to feel the pinch (grab, or grope) and opt out. They will jump when passenger volumes drop.

Al| 11.18.10 @ 8:56AM

Maybe I'm wrong, but methinks Mr. Tyrrell is doing the satire bit here.

Georgia Prune| 11.18.10 @ 8:57AM

First, I know a TSA agent personally. His previous job experience that qualifies him to be an airport security agent - he used to clean Hertz cars after they came off rental. I feel very safe now - don't you?

Second, the investors in the company that makes the body scanners include George Soros (until yesterday), Deepak Chopra & Chertoff (can't remember the first name). I smell insider payoffs to Obama's buds. Always follow the money.

Frank Natoli| 11.18.10 @ 8:58AM

The language is always the first key to who is being informative versus who is being deceptive.

"Full body scanner". That's intentionally deceptive. It's "full frontal nudity camera". That's richly informative. I'm sure many Americans "approve" of "full body scanners". But guess where they get their "news" from? Guess how many have seen the full frontal nudity photos, male and female genitalia? Fully inform them and ask again.

"Pat down". That's also intentionally deceptive. It's "groping" in a manner that would be a felony sexual assault anywhere else. That's informative. Ask the same dullards if they approve of little children being groped.

And of course save the best question for last:

"Given the choice between a profiling and questioning system proven effective by the airline most at risk for terrorism in the world, or a full frontal nudity camera and/or sexual groping, which would you prefer the government to implement"?

And my compliments to derekcrane for noting the unchallenged precedent of any and all constitutional rights being waived by air travelers and the implications of that for profiling and aggressive questioning.

ddn| 11.18.10 @ 8:58AM

First - what does this ever more intrusive police state have to do with the freedoms American Spectator seems to espouse? Why are you trying to justify the unjustifiable? If a terrorist blows up an airplane tomorrow, are we so ready to lay down our freedoms to an eager government?

Second - The new system has a huge gaping hole in security - it is called muslim females. They are off limits because of Obama's preference for islam and because of political correctness.

I do believe the president is so petty and vindictive, that he would put this Orwellian system on the American people just for revenge for his humiliations (that he fully has earned and deserves).

CHHR| 11.18.10 @ 9:04AM

IN response to your article, “Pat Me, Pat Me”

In your disgust and eagerness to slam your fellow citizens, you forgot some key considerations – the scanners do not detect the explosives that were found on the Underwear bomber. Israel has been under siege far longer and with far better policies to prevent terrorism. Clearly the environment of anti-Semitism and anti-Israel has increased the trends for this small country, yet they do not seem to need these scanners and travel is much more safe, organized and efficient. One thing is for sure, one size fits all policies have never proven effective or realistic in the long run.

You don’t have to agree with those that are upset, but please at least consider the reality that our Government has done more to punish every day travelers for their own failures then they have in preventing terrorism. In just over one year, we’ve had three very credible attacks, right here on our own soil that pose a far greater threat than most holiday travelers in the US. All under the nose of our Government and all preventable, where did that get us?

Could there be another reason behind these policies enacted by our Government? Is it possible for you to consider? I mean, could you try using your critical thinking skills and actually attempt a more balanced, objective “news report?” For example, interesting timing on the implementation of these scans, don’t you think? Also ask yourself why pilots and flight attendants are also subjected to this invasive screen if not for the intended outcome of public strife. Many of these folks fly multiple flights a day and if they wanted to take down a plane, smuggling explosives in their body cavities would be the least effective means of doing so. When one has control of the weapon, anything else would be a bit ridiculous, don’t you think? What if you considered that the defiance we’ve seen by this Administration was the real threat with the intended outcome to cause crisis by and between the people they are entrusted to protect? I know, our Government would not do that, or would they? Personally I’ve seen many examples of where the people have been made victims by the government, so the thought is not a far stretch for me. But, you go ahead, go through the scanner, which by the way can detect sweat on your back and match your face to the image it’s so clear. Or maybe you would prefer the “pat down” instead. To that I say, you obviously have no point of reference or experience with sexual harassment, assault or abuse, something that would be illegal and punishable in every court of law with prison time. Not to mention the practice of “pat downs” of children under the age of consent. Not to worry, though, the next time you travel, you’ll become much more educated. Of that I am absolutely sure.

NavyBrat| 11.18.10 @ 9:06AM

Ok. I think Tyrell dropped the ball on this one. BADLY. I too, agree with the Drudge headline "The Terrorists Have Won." We're doing all of this crap because we're responding to THE LAST THREAT, with no eye on the NEXT threat. Our intel services aren't allowed to do their jobs anymore & kill these pukes before they get here in the first place. I, for one, will not have my "junk" cupped by some chump on the gub-ment payroll who doesn't know shat from shinola about security proceedures other than the automaton-like funtion. Using the El Al style of profiling EVERYONE, asking EVERYONE different questions. Looking those people in the eye & observing their behavior. These proceedures WE'RE using are just plain idiotic.

Bill| 11.18.10 @ 9:14AM

My objection to the full-body scan and the pat-down alternative is based on the fact that this is the natural and logical result of refusing to profile people.

Thomas| 11.18.10 @ 9:16AM

Personally, I am not overly concerned with either the new security protocols or the current reaction to them. The protocols are a reasonable response to the increase in body-borne explosive devices and the full body scanner is the most efficient and least intrusive means to accomplish the goal of detection. The response is simply a result of the anti-government furor that is currently in vogue in America.

I have addressed this controversy, on this site, previously. No one has a "Constitutional" right to fly on an airplane. Physical passenger screening has been around since 1968 and has never been ruled a violation of any constitutional privacy right.

I don't feel like reiterating all of the reasons why the screening protocols are as they are, so I'll just say two things. The only reason that this is even an issue is because the last three attempts to down an aircraft using body-borne explosive devices is because they were all failures. Had anyone of them succeeded, people would be quietly lining up for their trip through the machine and anyone who refused would be subjected to extreme scrutiny by the rest of the flying public.

And finally, love it or hate it, TSA's mandate is to provide as much security against in-flight attack for the American people as possible. It is a no-win situation. If nothing happens, the screeners are jack-booted thugs who should be jailed. If a plane goes down in flames they are incompetent boobs who should be jailed. Of course, in the latter case, there are also 200+ dead people involved.

Typical Sheepole| 11.18.10 @ 9:32AM

I am told driving is a privelege not a right. You say flying on an airplane is not a right. Well...Just where do our rights apply mister? Only when we are at home, hiding in the closet, saying nothing? Our rights were intended for daily life and that includes the often necessity of driving a car and taking an airplane. Who/what gives you the right to have huge exclusion zones on my rights?

russel| 11.18.10 @ 10:01AM

For the love of Pete , can't you understand that ' rights ' are not in question here . It's called life and sometimes it's not fair . Drudge is wrong , the terrorist's have NOT won because they haven't been able get a good bomb to go off , yet , and from our country of origin . Yes , the police state is not welcome , but a city littered with plane parts isn't either .

JShizzle| 11.18.10 @ 11:09AM

So the sole judge of whether our rights are violated, pun intended, is whether or not a bomb goes off? Sorry, but if I am forced to watch my son get assaulted OR have his genitals scanned and saved (and yes, it happens) on a hard drive in order to fly to any destination...then YES, the terrorists have won. We're giving away our dignity and liberty in the name of security.

ddn| 11.18.10 @ 12:47PM

Russel, I am told that I cannot get onto an airplane unless I: 1) have a nude x-ray or 2) am seriously groped (possibly both). You do not think that is a loss of rights? When we lay down like you, then the malls, arenas, parks, etc. are next. How about your own personal government camera that follows you around (and into the bathroom)? Oh, it will all be done to keep us safe and free of evil conservatives that wish us harm.

Grzmlyk| 11.18.10 @ 12:54PM

When terrorists successfully alter the way in which we live our everyday lives because we are TERRIFIED of being blown up, they have achieved victory.

the purpose of terrorism is not to inflict maximum casualties. It's to corrode the sense of general welfare of the people such that they live their lives in fear -such that either they capitulate to terrorists' demand or else their governments are forced to do away with everyday life as it was once experienced.

Is that ringing a bell?

TennesseeVolunteer| 11.18.10 @ 3:19PM

Everybody get into the showers after you take all of your clothes off. After you shower, we will have fresh clothes and good food.
Don't worry about you little brother and Dad, they have good warm showers too.
Hisssss...... goes the gas as it comes out of the shower heads.
Russel, your government has called millions of tax paying citizens terrorists. they have said it is anti patriotic if you don't want to pay more taxes. they feel up you fellow citizens, even young children and a nun for gods sake. And you stand there and say "I don't mind getting in the shower, it will be good for us. Big Brother knows best.
No Russel, they don't know best.
My entire family will not fly unless it is absolutely critical. We will go through the scanners if we must. No one will ever touch my wife...ever.

Occam's Tool| 11.18.10 @ 4:40PM

The underwear bomber was stopped because a PASSENGER took the active role. Flight 93 didn't crash into a government building because the PASSENGERS took control. The government did nothing to stop these, and the first one occurred despite the government being warned by the Terrorist's FATHER!

The objection is that these intrusive approaches are being applied without rhyme or reason because the obviously useful approach---profiling---isn't being used. Profiling would mean I would be interrogated every time I stepped on the approach to a plane (Arabic looking Jew), and that's fine with me. But my wife is obviously super white, and my kids are Mayan Indians. Why should they be bugged?

Grzmlyk| 11.18.10 @ 11:23AM

What happens when a plane goes down in flames due to an exigency our brilliant TSA hasn't yet thought of? And the one after that? And the one after that?

You can't keep adding layers of security measures as a knee-jerk reaction to the last threat. This is insanity and the inevitable outcome will be government power run amok. Guaranteed.

Like all government agencies, the TSA's purpose is not to provide security. It's to provide the appearance of security within a rubric of political correctness.

Its true raison detre is, of course, to grow bigger and more powerful and to garner more dollars so it can put more cretins on its payroll.

The airlines should be empowered to do security, and, while I don't have a constitutional right to fly, I DO have a constitutional right not to be molested. PROFILING would eliminate 75% of the problem; but we've decided as a society that we'd rather have everyone suffer in the guise of equal treatment than offend the latest victim group du jour.

Have you noticed the general quality of the people doing the screening at airports? It doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

Not to mention the arbitrary and opportunistic confiscation of personal items such as jewelry that is already rampant.

When will you learn that the ONLY thing government bureaucracies do well is metastasize?

Thomas| 11.18.10 @ 11:44AM

Remember the riots and the lawsuits of the late sixties, the lawsuits and court decisions of the '70s. '80s and '90s? How about the recent brouhaha over "racial profiling" of automobile drivers? Remember the volumnes of court decisions that said it was illegal to discriminate against anyone based solely upon their race, age, gender, religion or national origin? Remember that? Well that is why everyone is subject to the screening protocols. Other factors can be used to justify singling a person out for enhanced screening, but it has to be based upon something other than the protected categories.

Let me repeat this one more time. No one has the inalienable right to travel aboard an airplane. If you choose to travel that way, you have to submit to the screening protocols. There are alternate means of travel available that do not require such screening. It is your choice.

Grzmlyk| 11.18.10 @ 11:49AM

Duh. Of course I remember - that's why we are where we are. Hellllllooooo! Is anybody home in there, or are you just a platitude spouter?

Because we have empowered victim groups to force us to abandon common sense doesn't make it right, and it doesn't mean that common sense still isn't the best way to approach problems.

But as long as the inmates are running the asylum, we'll have people like you bending over backwards to accommodate them.

You work for the government, don't you?

Grzmlyk| 11.18.10 @ 11:53AM

BTW, let me guess: If a woman is raped by a man, and she swears he was black, you would insist that the cops track down equal numbers of people of every ethnicity in order to make it fair.

Good thinking!

Thomas| 11.18.10 @ 12:11PM

Apples and oranges. In the case of the rapist, you are looking for a particular person, identified by the eyewitness of a crime. In the case of introducing dangerous devices into a secure area, you do not have any information or evidence that a specific person is going to perform this act. If an informant gave reliable information that a 22 year old Lebenese names Thomas was going to attempt to sneak a bomb onto a plane at Newark, then you could use that information to stop virtually every young Lebenese male , especially if he was named Thomas in that airport.

You make the mistake of assuming that all terrorist airplane bombers fit a specific gender, age, race and national origin profile. Unfortunately, that is not true. Robert Reid was an white American of European origin. The Fruit of the Loom bomber was of Nigerian origin. The latest threat, was also from Africa. No young Middle Easterners there. If aircraft security only targets people fitting a narrow given profile, if a device slips through and a plane is downed, the American people will be calling for the heads of everyone from the screeners to the President.

Grzmlyk| 11.18.10 @ 12:27PM

No, YOU make the mistake of assuming when I say profile, I mean racially profile - which gives away your game entirely. To which victim group do you belong?

Just out of curiosity, what 99.9% all of the terror incidents involving planes or structures int he last decade have in common? Gosh, I can't imagine. Can you?

Was it old Southern Baptist females who perpetrated all of these attempts?

Obvious status as a Muslim is one element (and, just so you know, that is NOT racial profiling; may ethnicities have Muslim populations). And it's a pretty damned significant one.

Gender is another. Age is another. Behavior is another. Context is another. Country of origin is another. Flight history is another. Payment method for the ticket is another. Visa status is another. Shall I go on?

Do you see everything in two dimensions, or is it just when it comes to government stupidity that you have a Manichean view of the universe?

Besides, in the case of the rape, I'm sure you could get the radicalized NAACP to insist - and our obedient Ruling Class to go along - that it was a predisposition produced by the inherent bigotry of the Oppressive White Culture that caused the woman to perceive that the man who raped her was black.

So, not only would the cops under you - or Michael Bloomberg or Eric Holder - be happy to squander resources by looking at every single ethnicity equally because, gosh darn it, that's FAIR, you'd slap the rape victim with a civil lawsuit charging that, by making her charge, she - OMG - OFFENDED an entire "community" that is first among equals in Preferred Victim Group status.

Welcome to liberal land, folks: Up is down, good is bad, in is out, infation is deflation, judgment is bigotry, and on and on and on.

Sam Vaughn| 11.18.10 @ 3:16PM

when was the last time you saw a Catholica nun fly a plane into a building, or granny strap on a bomb....

Louis Jenkins| 11.18.10 @ 12:18PM

But the truth is Grzmlyk, the DOJ will make them to just that. Gotta be fair. I for one think we should profile the He-- of the people doing the bombing. A grandmother using a walker is a poor excuse for a bomber.

Grzmlyk| 11.18.10 @ 12:32PM

Absolutely, Louis, that's the problem.

But that's what's got to change or our entire culture is doomed. When VOLUNTEER to be too goddamned STUPID to save our own lives, do we even deserve to continue as a race?

Maybe Darwinism is trying to tell us something: That the world should be left to the flora and fauna of the planet, which have all developed methods of survival.

ddn| 11.18.10 @ 12:51PM

Wise Thomas said: "Let me repeat this one more time. No one has the inalienable right to travel aboard an airplane. " Then I do not have a right to travel by car, horse and buggy, bicycle, etc. I also do not have a right to own a home, jewelry, clothes, etc. I guess I should just be thankful for what the government allows me to have and hope they do not change their mind.

Barbara| 11.19.10 @ 12:14AM

The court decisions were wrong. I don't give up 4th Amendment rights when my husband's at the wheel of our car, why should I be forced to abandon them when someone else's husband is behind the wheel of another mode of transport?
Good grief - the average cop has more restrictions on searches than TSA employees!

George True| 11.18.10 @ 11:34AM

I respectfully take issue with several of your statements. First, under the 4th Amendment we have a right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure in our homes and our persons. That means freedom from searches without probable cause, while we are out and about, going about our daily business, including when we are traveling.

Secondly, the first time I ever flew was in the summer of 1969 as a young lad of 18. I flew from St Louis to Kansas City and back. There was no security of any kind. Just walk up to the counter, purchase a ticket, go to the gate, and get on the plane. And I recall it being that way all the way up to at least the early eighties.

Third, the type of explosives used in the last several failed attempts was PETN, similar to nitro glycerine in explosive power, but more stable. But in the amounts that someone could potentially conceal in their crotch, I think it is highly questionable whether it could bring down an airliner. An explosive device in the luggage (most of which is not scrutinized) or a device smuggled aboard by an airport worker is the far greater threat. Thus, the gate-rape of passengers is little more than Kabuki theater.

Finally, TSA's so-called mandate is to keep terrorists off of airplanes, not to subject 100% of passengers to unreasonable searches of their private parts.

Thomas| 11.18.10 @ 11:57AM

Federally mandated airline security screening began in 1968 for flights from selected airports and along selected routes, in response to airline hijackings. In 1971, the Air Marshal's service was started. In January of 1973, passenger screening was mandated for all flights in the U.S. Interestingly enough, the FAA was taken to court over the issue of whether the metal detector was a violation of the 4th Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that it was, but that it was permitted, as a necessary safety measure, as long as it was used only to locate and identify weapons and explosives AND that it was applied universally. The same holds true today.

By the way, all cargo, including checked baggage is x-rayed and sometimes search before going into the hold.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 7:29PM

Of course you will support mandatory TSA anal exams after the next terrorist with explosives up his rectum blows a plane out of the sky, right?
Fool.

And you're lying about the cargo--not all of it is searched and x-rayed.

Dave| 11.18.10 @ 9:18AM

Mr. Tyrell, I would simply request that you write a follow-up to this article once you have been subjected to an "enhanced pat-down". I was this past Monday and I can tell you that you won't think the same about this issue afterward.

CHHR| 11.18.10 @ 9:35AM

I said the exact same thing! Experience is usually a wonderful teacher - but hey, our schools are a shameful disgrace and critical thinking and objective decision making skills have been all but made illegal.

Mel Torme| 11.18.10 @ 10:11AM

Definitely, they must have been illegal in Bob Tyrell's school. He ain't gonna learn anything by Monday, except whether he is indeed a latent homosexual ;-)

"Not that there's anything wrong with that!" (being short on critical thinking, I mean).

"Of course not!"

Douglas| 11.18.10 @ 9:29AM

PROFILE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

pax78| 11.18.10 @ 9:30AM

Most revealing is Mr. Tyrells statement that he will happily be scanned and "on his way". NOT if a TSA agent decides he requires a pat down/grope in ADDITION to the scan! Does Mr. Tyrell not realize that he is at the mercy of a govt. agent? There are no "opt out" scenarios that don't include legal action and fines. This is a complete submission to a government agency without any choice on the part of the citizen. Think it through, Mr. Tyrell. Where do you think this kind of submission will end? I'll cut to the chase...it won't end, it will expand.

Mel Torme| 11.18.10 @ 9:31AM

"No one has a "Constitutional" right to fly on an airplane." Another sheep heard from ... all I can make out of your comment, Thomas, is "baa, baa, baa ..."

Have you ever read the supposed law of the land, the US Constitution, Thomas. Specifically, read Amendment 4, in the Bill of Rights. Here:

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.

Of course, there is no "right to fly" enumerated. To put that in it's late 1700's analog, nobody's got a "right to travel in a horse-drawn carriage". What does that mean? Did it mean that back then the US government could at will limit anyone from traveling in a horse-drawn carriage no. See Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Now, see Amendment 10, which means the US Government cannot do anything outside the powers enumerated in this document (US Constitution). They've got no damn right to ban the latest energy/alcohol drink, Four Locos or whatever-T-F. Amendment 10 states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Back to # 4: If an FBI agent for instance has knowledge of a bomb plot, for instance, and gets a warrant from a judge for the search of certain people involved, at the airport or not at the airport, that is a reasonable search. It is not permissible for people to be searched for no REASON. Get it! That would make it UNREASONABLE! Get that! What the fuck is wrong with you and Tyrell? Why didn't both of you just move to Russia or China when you had the chance (say, Russia before 1989 and China before 1995)? Y'all would have enjoyed yourselves there, you fucking sheep.

Physical passenger screening has been around since 1968 and has never been ruled a violation of any constitutional privacy right.

Mel Torme| 11.18.10 @ 9:38AM

Oops, I meant to comment on that last sentence:

"Physical passenger screening has been around since 1968 and has never been ruled a violation of any constitutional privacy right."

Yes, it has, but until 2002, any security, if at all, was provided by the airline companies. It is government-run now. The Constitution does not limit what the airline companies may do, as one is not coerced to do business with any particular airline.

Also, your memory may be lousy, Thomas, but mine isn't. Even in the 1990's the search was just for guns and large knives (again by the airlines, not the US government). Whatever got done there was just a function of that airline's policies, the people were reasonable and did not act like cops, as they weren't.

In the 1980's there were just metal detectors and no screening of any other kind. In the early 1970's, there was no security deal at all. What a free country we have lost. You sheep suck. We should shear your asses and leave you out in the cold in eastern Montana to die.

Thomas| 11.18.10 @ 11:15AM

Ah, I see now. You would be entirely comfortable if a private company, contracted with by the airline made you walk through a full-body scanner or subjected you to a very intensive pat down or possibly even a strip search. So, then, your complaint is not that the protocols are being done, but rather who is doing them.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for making my original point so clearly. Your only concern with the scanners, the searches and everything else is that it is being done by a government agency.

Let me enlighten you, Bucky. any airport in the nation may opt out of the TSA screening program. They can hire their own private security company to do the screening. But, just as in the pre-9/11 days of airline security, they still have to follow the federally established protocols. In the '90s, the airlines did not get to decide which screening protocols they wanted to follow and travelers did not have the option of opting out of the procedures. Just as it is today. You are a veritable gold mine of misinformation, aren't you.

And how well did the gun and knife only screening work out in the 21st century? Ask the people on board the planes, in the Pentagon and in the Twin Towers on 9/11.

Grzmlyk| 11.18.10 @ 11:42AM

The airlines would have a vested interest in NOT squandering resources, which is the exact opposite of every government bureaucracy ever invented.

They would also be less encumbered by the gorilla of political correctness - which is not only stupid beyond belief, it is a terrible waste of resources. We've seen how ineffective the TSA has been thus far with every ratcheting up of the procedures.

If the airlines handled screening - heaven forfend - they might even be empowered to

PROFILE.

So when the next plane goes down even after these draconian measures have become enshrined, what then? More money and bigger budgets to pay higher salaries to more union thugs who are ever-more powerful and more interested in scoring free loot and flexing their muscle than they are about doing their jobs?

Besides, if CAIR has its way - and does anyone think it won't with this bunch in the white house? - Muslims will be exempt from screenings. Forget the box cutters - bring machetes on board!

When it comes to the government, does anyone wonder that they think it's much better to let one or two planes go down than suffer the accusation of "offending" a Preferred Victim Group?

Thomas| 11.18.10 @ 12:25PM

You people just don't seem to understand a simple truth. The GOVERNMENT sets the security standards. That is your government, by the way. The airlines have no say in it and they never did.

Now, lets get to your profiling arguments.

Robert Ried, remember him?, the shoe bomber was not a young Middle Eastern male. He was an upper middle class American of European origin. Both of the next security threats, the Fruit of the Loom bomber and the most recent threat were from Africa.

What about the hijackers of the 60's, 70's and '80's? You had Hispanics, Blacks, Orientals, Europeans and Middle Easterners. They were comprised of both men and women. Who do you profile?

You, and many others who want an easily identifiable enemy, fixate on young, male, Middle Eastern Muslims. But, the enemy can, and is, anyone who wants to identify themselves with the aims of the radical organizations seeking to destroy the United States and West.

But, as evidenced by your last statement, you are perfectly willing to allow your family and friends to die as long as you can rail against anything that the government does.

Grzmlyk| 11.18.10 @ 1:16PM

Hey dipshit: His name is Richard Reid, and he was a MUSLIM. Get it??????????????

Also, most of the terrorists are upper middle class or at least educated. That must disappoint your romantic notions, but it is a fact.

And it should be OUR government - we are NOT its subjects. If the people rise up and say ENOUGH, then it is the government that has to change.

You DO understand the Declaration of Independence, don't you?

Seriously, it is OBVIOUS that you get your paycheck from the government - which means me, the taxpayer. And as long as WE are paying the salaries of you incompetent clowns, YOU WORK FOR US. Get it?

Grzmlyk| 11.18.10 @ 1:27PM

Another thing: As I said at the outset, the government hs proven itself to be ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE INCOMPETENT, INEFFICIENT, COWARDLY AND CORRUPT.

The fatuousness of your statment that I'm willing to let my family and friends die just because I like to rail against the government betrays the utter untenable nature of your underlying argument.

You think because the govenrment does it, it's ipso facto good. So YOU are perfectly willing to let your family and friends die as long as those deaths came at the hands of a government that was observing all political correctness - even as its true nature - as a gluttonous, bloated gravy train for incompetents - remains hidden behind the myth of omnicient beneficence.

You ARE a sheep.

Todd S| 11.18.10 @ 1:32PM

Robert Reid was a British Muslim convert and was half white and half black. He was also a career criminal who had more than 10 convictions for crimes against property and persons. It is all there on wikipedia so get your facts straight before you blather on about something you have no idea about. And what is your source about the hijackings in the 60's through the 80's? As I recall the PLO and associated Middle Eastern terrorist groups were behind a large majority of them. You sir are an ignorant fool.

Todd S| 11.18.10 @ 1:52PM

I meant Richard Reid of course but I blame Thomas for that. According to Thomas, "Robert" was a well off white American when he was actually half black British criminal named Richard who made a number of trips to Afghanistan and Pakistan to train at terrorist camps. No way to see him as a potential threat right Thomas?

Mel Torme| 11.18.10 @ 2:31PM

Well, Todd, there was a rash of Cuban guys wanting to go home for some damn reason. None of them ever wanted to take the plane down, though.

There was also the disgruntled Fed-Ex pilot who severely hurt the 2 flying pilots (the disgruntled guy was jump-seating). So, he worked for Fed-Ex, so that's really not what we're dealing with here anyway. (oh, the 2 guys landed the plane, but were not ever fit to fly jets again due to injuries sustained).

I wanted to point these things out, but they don't detract from your argument.

Todd S| 11.18.10 @ 8:07PM

Only in my 30's so my memory doesn't go that far back but I know as a matter of fact that the PLO used hijackings to further than agenda during that period of time. Sure there were other nutcases but largely it was those Middle Eastern scum behind it and that is why Israel had to learn to properly screen and profile to prevent these outrages.

Todd S| 11.18.10 @ 8:08PM

their agenda, spelling miscue

Mel Torme| 11.18.10 @ 2:26PM

I didn't read consonant-man's ;-) replies yet, though I am sure they are good. Listen, Thomas:

First, my name's not Bucky. 2nd, I would not go through any wasteful, intrusive process like this no matter who was running it. The difference is that the airlines and airports were free to chose their own methods, and nothing was specified by the Federal govt.

"And how well did the gun and knife only screening work out in the 21st century? Ask the people on board the planes, in the Pentagon and in the Twin Towers on 9/11." I'm glad you asked that - it was best before any of it, when you could just put your rifle or shotgun in the baggage rack (unloaded of course), and there were probably a number of armed people on board - that sure wouldn't bother me.

Then, the reason I can't ask the 9/11 victims about any of this is because they weren't armed to defend themselves (I don't mean they all would have had to be - how about just 10, or 3 or 1 guy) Damn, Thomas, the terrorists just had box cutters! Yes, there was the element of surprise involved, but the United 93 flight passengers knew what was going on. They all died because nobody had guns on board - why don't you go and ask them how they feel about that, Thomas?

John II| 11.18.10 @ 3:36PM

Thomas called me "Bucky" too, just a few days back. He didn't display any interest in my counterpoints or arguments--fine. But he never told me who "Bucky" is. That was the part that hurt.

I'm old enough to remember Bucky Beaver in the Ipana toothpaste commercials, but that's the only connection I can draw, and it doesn't make any sense.

Anyhow, Thomas is excellent at communicating condescension, however obscurely, but he doesn't argue very well.

Occam's Tool| 11.18.10 @ 4:45PM

Please call me Bucky---I've always wanted to be Captain America's side-kick.

John II| 11.18.10 @ 10:38PM

Oh. I didn't make THAT connection. I suppose, even in the various incarnations of Bucky in the 60-odd years of Captain America, the common image would be of a gosh-wow do-gooder aspiring to a higher place in the super-hero pecking order.

Yeah--okay. Call me Bucky. In real life, I'm just a teacher--but I suspect a lot of teachers have a Bucky-complex.

Feel free to swipe that last term to add to the jargon of your profession, Occie.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 7:32PM

Bucky Beaver and Ipana toothpaste--LOL!

Talk about a blast from the past.

CHHR| 11.18.10 @ 9:38AM

save the language, you presented sound constitutional arguments. One problem, our government has admitted that they could care less about that document and believe they can do whatever they want.

Mel Torme| 11.18.10 @ 10:02AM

I will save some of it, CHHR, as I'm sure I'll need it in the years to come.

I was pretty pissed, especially at Tyrell. I can understand a dumbass like Thomas, as anyone can comment here, but Tyrell is a supposedly conservative editorial writer. Yet, he hasn't read the US Constitution!

I guess they don't make conservative editorial writers or just conservatives like they used to. How old it Barry Goldwater now? I wonder if he's up for some ass-kicking?

Thomas| 11.18.10 @ 9:45AM

Fine sentiments, all. Repeat them to yourself and your family as you plummet from 30,000 feet in the remains of an airplane destroyed by a bomb carried on the person of one of the people enjoying the rights that you so vehemently espouse. But, please, don't take MY family with you.

Oh, by the way, as there is no Constitutional right to fly on an airplane in the U.S. As to your carriage analogy, the same thing applies. There is no constitutional right to unrestricted travel, by any means. If you don't wish to subject yourself to screening simply do not fly. It is an individual decision, after all.

JohnD| 11.18.10 @ 9:50AM

. . .as if the TSA groping old grannies and molesting pre-school children is going to prevent an attack by 18-30 YO Muslim males.

Oh, and a plane almost plummetted to earth from 30,000 feet due to the TSA ignoring warnings from the father of the underwear bomber (traveling from Yemen) that he was a terrorist.

Are you really fooled by the security theater? This is not security. Has TSA caught any terrorists by groping them at the airport?

Mel Torme| 11.18.10 @ 10:05AM

Right on, JohnD. I hadn't read your comment yet while I was writing mine, but mine came later, as I had to cool off my keyboard.

Mel Torme| 11.18.10 @ 9:58AM

I wouldn't have to worry about plummeting to earth due to explosives (except for Hazmat), Thomas, if we had some Federal Agents who actually did their jobs, yes, per the Constitution.

Ohh, but that would mean they would have to single out some people "of concern", based on a sworn warrant from a judge, almost all of whom would be Moslems from a certain part of the world, many of who are not even on a legal visa to begin with, or any visa (coming via the south route), or were admitted as a whole group of foreign refugees to settle in a place like, I don't know, YOUR TOWN.

Do you have a problem with a real detective force that does real police work, Thomas? Or, it that too politically incorrect for you.

Has the TSA stopped any of the attempts at blowing your family to bits at flight level 350? I'll answer that in the form of a question: "No, but, why are all those 20,000 people standing around at airports feeling up people's genitals, Alex?"

Next, I'll take barnyard animals for $400, Alex. "The answer is "Sheep"."

"What are people who would give up their freedoms forever for useless security theater?"

Ding, ding, ding, it's the Daily Double!

Thomas| 11.18.10 @ 11:01AM

Mel,

Thanks for making my point about the reason that people have the knickers in a twist about this subject. In the case of airline bombers, the government is not the enemy. The bomber is.

Has the TSA stopped any of the attempts at blowing up your family at 30,000 feet? That is like asking how many people the locks on your doors have kept from burglarizing your home. I suppose that you have no locks on your doors, though; unless you have already been the victim of a successful burglary. Many people pay a lot of money to install burglar alarms on their homes to foil POTENTIAL burglars. I suppose that they should save the money, until after someone relieves them of all of their belongings. Great logic. But wait a minute here. Somebody DID attempt to blow up an airliner in flight using a body-borne explosive device. Three somebodies, in fact. And all of them did it before the new protocols were in place.

As a matter of fact, I would welcome a "real detective force" or even an efficient intelligence apparatus to combat terrorism. I am not sure that YOU could however. I take it you are a big supporter of the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretaps, warrantless detention of foreigners with coerced interrogation, etc. Well, where do you think you get the information for a warrant to begin with? Law enforcement spends hundreds of thousands of man-hours every year attempting to identify criminals BEFORE they commit crimes. It is largely hit and miss, until after the crime has been committed. And, because of the rights that potential criminals enjoy, it is very often illegal to take any action against them until they have committed the crime.

Then there is my favorite argument from so many people. Let's simply profile a threat based entirely upon gender, age, religion and region of origin. Ignore everyone who is not a young, male, Muslim from the Middle east. Except, the last threat, who you mentioned, was not Middle Eastern, but African. In fact, none of the last three U.S. bound threats fit the profile. The women who brought down the Russian Airliner two years ago were also not Middle Eastern, nor were they male. And how do you identify a persons religion, if they do not wear identifiable clothing or jewelry identifying their affiliation? You have Muslims, Christians and Jews among all of the various races on the planet.

While the governments of this nation are the enemy of the people in many instances, aircraft security is not one of them. You are fighting the wrong people in this particular battle. Remember one word if you win this one though, BOOM. At least you and your family will have died with your "rights" intact.

JShizzle| 11.18.10 @ 11:15AM

What is your argument going if, God forbid, a plane DOES blow up despite fondling that 6 yr old girl and the 85 year old grandma and measuring that dude's genitals against others stored on the hard drive? What then do you blame when the Broadway Show named "Security by Humiliation" fails to make us safer?

Thomas| 11.18.10 @ 11:24AM

Well, we'll have to cross that bridge when, or if, we come to it. But remember one thing. After 9/11/2001, the private screeners that conducted the screening of the terrorists were vilified by the press. They were blamed for the introduction
of the weapons used by the hijackers, even though all of the items were AUTHORIZED for carry-on at that time. And the FAA, who knew that, stood mute and let the people who did nothing wrong take the heat
.
Remember, you do not have to fly on a commercial airliner. You do not have to subject yourself to the security screening. This is voluntary and only required if you choose to fly to your destination. And, it is only required because it is transportation that you share with the general public and against which deadly, destructive attacks have been carried out and attempted.

ddn| 11.18.10 @ 1:13PM

Remember, you do not have to fly on a commercial airliner. You do not have to subject yourself to the security screening. This is voluntary and only required if you choose to fly to your destination.

This is such a stupid statement. In this world, many people do have to fly because their jobs require it. The same stupid argument is made about driving. If the government put a tax on air, ignorant people such as yourself would be telling us that we do not have to breath.

What has obviously eluded your supposed superior intellect is that bit by bit, little by little, the government is weaving a web around the people of this nation that you can't avoid becoming stuck in.

The way this is done is to tell us we have rights, BUT...not in this situation, or not in this application, or not because of this particular situation. Little by little they are setting precedence such that they are rendering the Constitution meaningless and completely redefined.

You probably do not deserve the freedoms given you because you are so quick to give them up. I say jump...and your response better be how high because that is obviously who you are.

Grzmlyk| 11.18.10 @ 1:35PM

What papers wer YOU reading? The screeners weren't vilified at all. George Bush was vilified. To some extent, the "wall" between the CIA and the FBI was vilified. The lack of Visa oversight was vilified.

Those guys should have been caught and kicked out of the country long before they put those box cutters in their pockets.

I don't recall reading ONE SINGLE article that vilified the individual screeners. The system was vilified, and then the idiot Norm Mineta got hold of security and from then on it was a Keystone Cop, Politically correct circle jerk.

Which it still is, only it's got a much bigger budget now.

It just amazes me how utterly foolish you liberals are - all because you don't want to violate political correctness.

Grzmlyk| 11.18.10 @ 1:58PM

We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

Brilliant.

Let me guess: Anal exams. Vomiting for the drug detector. Submitting to an exhaustive, three-day exam.

While Muhammad and Abdul get escorted onto the plane lest their beards get ruffled.

Does the impact of this onorous bullshit on airline travel occur to you people? You all blithely say, "well, if you don't like getting a rectal exam, don't fly." What if 200 million Americans take you up on that?

What will happen to the airline industry then?

I know: Our fearless, competent government can take it over. Then nobody will get anywhere, but at least we'll know our plane fares are keeping union baggage handlers and screeners current on their Mercedes payments.

And I'M the one who will be happy to witness deatch simply because I think the government is imposing tyranny disgused as beneficence?

Sam Vaughn| 11.18.10 @ 3:25PM

Thomas, you're not going to persuade. The bad guys are muslims it's that simple. I can only conclude you're a member of 1) a Union, 2) you bought into that hopey changey thing, 3) you take home a government paycheck or you secretly enjoy watching grandmothers and children being fondled and wouldn't miss it for the world...

Mel Torme| 11.18.10 @ 8:08PM

He's just a sheep, and he doesn't have the brainpower to think this through, and if he did, not enough integrity to stand for freedom.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 7:35PM

Or another Soros' useful idiot. I'm sure he screamed BusHitler!! for 8 long years.

Barbara| 11.19.10 @ 12:26AM

Are you serious? Heard of probable cause? Ask any cop about searching a vehicle after a traffic stop? Think 4th Amendment, no, gosh darn it, read it!!

Mark1957| 11.18.10 @ 9:34AM

I am one of the millions of Americans who was sexually molested as a child. I felt helpless then and swore to never allow anyone to steal my dignity again. Just because I purchased an airline ticket does not give them the right to subject me to any indignities that they choose. The first TSA screener that touches me in my private parts will be spitting out teeth.

CHHR| 11.18.10 @ 9:40AM

And you will be promptly arrested for A&B. May I suggest carpooling in your next trip? One unintended outcome our wonderful government hadn't thought of as they sought to restrict our ability to travel. Moving together en masse on the government paid roads provides for a lot of en masse strategic planning...

Mark1957| 11.18.10 @ 10:15AM

There are worse things than being arrested, such as submitting to unjust laws.

darcy| 11.18.10 @ 7:27PM

First it's one unjust law, then another, and another, until every move you make is circumscribed by the government.

"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Alexander Hamilton.

Patriot| 11.25.10 @ 12:57AM

Killer quote! Our Founders rock to this day.

Mel Torme| 11.18.10 @ 9:46AM

Well, Mark, you should have complained (like I did) when they started up this TSA and Motherland Security crap.

You've reached your limit due to your personal problems. I understand that. If everyone waits until they can't stand something anymore on a personal basis (selfishness, in other words), rather than standing up for something from the get-go, we will all have to tolerate tyranny.

Maybe that isn't clear. We all have our breaking points (for example, when we really decide not to fly due to TSA intrusions), but they are at different times. It is selfishness because we don't stand up on principle for others who are pissed off at an earlier stage. Those people didn't stand up from the beginning, when they knew this was unconstitutional, but just weren't concerned too awful much ("are you kidding, are you kidding!, Nancy Pelosie on the unconstitutional federal health care bill.

I really don't mean this in a mean way Mark, but you have this coming. This will teach you a lesson about tyranny, and you will just have to bend over and take it - no, my name is not Dr. Al Bendova, it's Mel Torme.

I do want to see you punch the guy/broad in the teeth though, Mark. Nothing would please me more, and I hope you would have been thoughtful enough to bring your video camera.

Mark1957| 11.18.10 @ 10:09AM

You seem to have some "Velvet Fog" between your ears Mel. You don't know a damn thing about me or how much I have sounded the alarm against a tyrannical government. I have fought for this country and defended it's Constitution, so don't tell me that "I have this coming". I will never submit to tyranny.

Mel Torme| 11.18.10 @ 10:19AM

True, Mark. I look at people's reaction to the TSA as a whole, and sorry for including you in the group of sheep, if you are not in it.

I see a lot of people complaining now, who did not complain in 2002. That's a problem.

darcy| 11.18.10 @ 7:39PM

It's the nature of the beast, Mel Torme, not to pull out the gun, so to speak, until your life is at stake. To mount a counter-offensive requires a critical mass of equally aggrieved citizens; the human condition is such that we are often far too adaptable and willing to take slights, that is until we've reached our personal breaking point. There are, after all, not a few with bull-horns (from Walter Cronkite to Rachel Maddow) who act as the Greek Chorus in telling us how to interpret our world, against our better instincts.

The point is that we are here, now, Mr. Tyrrell notwithstanding. In our bones we know we are being had, by forces that conspire to bring us down -- in the name of security. Time now to focus, not to lament the past.

Stormy| 11.18.10 @ 9:38AM

Just wait, the TSA employees will be unionized in the near future (SEIU?). Their techniques will be untouchable then, and a subject of collective bargaining work rules.

Howard| 11.18.10 @ 9:43AM

Yes, we are at war, so maybe we can forget all the PC stuff and profile the savages who are out to kill us. Scanning and groping mom and pop and the 8 month old baby in line does nothing for security. It's true that anyone can be a threat but isn't it smarter to use our limited resources to stop the most obvious threats. Calls of Islamophobia are welcome here.

cuban pete| 11.18.10 @ 11:13AM

End of discussion

Finnbar Moran| 11.18.10 @ 9:45AM

Looks like even conservative pundits can display a bit of the ruling class mentality.

I am disappointed -- RET has been one of my heroes and since I bought my first copy of the TAS back when it printed on non-glossy paper.

It is clear that our elites on both sides of the fence are irreparably corrupt. Please remember that we got rid of George III for far less, folks.

Bob Pulls the Chicken Switch| 11.18.10 @ 9:47AM

by Peter McGrath.

Mr. Tyrell, with his hysterical agonizing over - not the inept "security" bureaucracy - but Drudge's exposure of the insipid stupidity of the TSA, has undermined his own credibility in far-reaching ways.

Tyrell rests his conclusions on an apparent assumption that creation of an army of Federally paid and directed "agents" was the best way to address security concerns at our nation's airports after 9/11. The assumption was, and continues to be, false. Increased security was paramount, but inserting a cadre of Federal agents between the terminal and boarding gates was a ham-fisted, stupid approach to the problem, now manifesting itself with the predictable bureaucratic bungling so typical of Federal bureaucracies.

Are there better approaches to the security issue? Of course. Is the current, Federal Government's, response the most appropriate? Of course, NOT. Tyrell needs to re-examine the issue, and cast aside assumptions that his readers - prior to today - would never have ascribed to this lifelong freedom fighter.

Larry C Roberts, MD, MA| 11.18.10 @ 9:51AM

How odd that Mr. Tyrrell would excoriate Mr. Clinton for groping unwilling women while encouraging the same behavior from similarly boorish government officers. Perhaps he has been in Washington so long that he is beginning to reason like his former nemesis.

John II| 11.18.10 @ 4:19PM

Never thought of that. Amid all this outcry, it wouldn't surprise me if Bubba is applying right now, under an assumed name, for a job as a TSA agent.

Whoa. Did I just start an internet rumor? I hope so.

dareisay| 11.18.10 @ 9:53AM

I don't fly period, but to those that do, this is your issue.

What I don't understand is why this much attention to flyers isn't used on our borders.

We have Muslims coming across our borders, they have found their Quaran's, backpacks with notes written in their language and maps to point them where to go! Not one person in charge of security knows where these people are!

Soros wants open borders, yet he is invested in these scanners....his twisted mind, he probably is laughing at Americans being stripped by a machine, while our borders are wide open!

Mel Torme| 11.18.10 @ 11:08AM

"I don't fly period, but to those that do, this is your issue."

I beg to differ, DareISay. Can you really say that you won't have any reason to go into a courthouse for the rest of your life? Maybe it's just an unfair, bogus traffic ticket, maybe a wreck or squabble with a neighbor or what-have-you.

Once the sheeple are OK with these illegal searches at airports, how can they complain about the same treatment at the courthouse, then at the shopping mall, etc ..? I don't think you will be able to avoid this issue [sic, problem].

I understand that, by not flying, you are depriving the airlines of business, and that may in turn get them to put more pressure on the TSA. I get that part. I just don't think this tyranny will leave you alone, even if you stay in your home town.

I totally agree with the rest of this and your other posts, BTW.

darcy| 11.18.10 @ 7:46PM

I must say, dareisay, that you have just solved the problem of all those scanners that are about to be removed from airline terminals: put them on the border, on this side of the completed fence.

Dave| 11.18.10 @ 12:53PM

Oh, but you need to expand your thinking.

If you get caught in more traffic jams because of the increased amount of people driving rather than flying, it affects you.

If you work for, or your community relies on the business of tourism and people stop flying to partake in this, it affects you.

If it expands to other realms such as shopping malls, courthouses etc., it affects you.

If the cost of gasoline rises due to increased demand as a result of increased car travel as opposed to air travel, it affects you.

Need I go on?

FastJohnny| 11.18.10 @ 9:58AM

I think Mr Tyrrell wrote this as an out-loud thought, not necessarily as a stand on an issue. To me it seems as if the point of this article was to encourage discussion and debate, which it has certainly done. I do not believe that we should trade liberty for security and if we do, we deserve niether ( I think Ben Franklin said something to that effect), however, just how do we secure ourselves, our country and our families?

An analogy to this might be something along the lines of a rat problem in a barn. (no parallel with Animal Farm, so don't read into what is not there). If you have rats in your barn, you don't subject the ducks, horses and cows to punishment and hardship, you find out how to remove the rat problem without harming the other livestock. No one will call you out for searching exclusively for rats, since they are the problem. We know what horses look like, we know what cows look like and we know what rats look like. Why spend so much time, effort and money on looking for everything but rats.

Mel Torme| 11.18.10 @ 10:23AM

My analogy would be a kindergarden. I think our Federal Gov't treats American citizens as a kindergarden teacher treats the 5 year-olds.

"Citizens, somebody did a no-no, and we are all going to have to be punished now."

somnolence| 11.18.10 @ 9:59AM

You are quite correct in saying there is "no right to fly", and I haven't in over 20 years. I will continue to avoid doing so until law-abiding American citizens cease to be harassed by the utilization of cattle-prodders and prison guard imitators. I realize that many have little choice because their avocation or pursuit of a business or professional pinnacle demands it. I consider myself fortunate that I chose the blue collar over the briefcase and laptop. Several years back I used to look forward someday of flying to London, Rome, Paris, Vienna, etc. Those thoughts have sadly ebbed and evaporated in the midst of this mindless drivel that Bob Tyrell is now sadly, awkwardly making excuses for. The terrorists have indeed, won.

bob alou| 11.18.10 @ 9:59AM

While I generally agree with most of what RET has to say in this case I do not. Ann Coulter is right that this is an overreach to address a profile under reach. How absurd is it to pat down a middle aged nun in order to avoid being perceived as offending a more obvious candidate for a terrorist attack. This is surreal as well as ineffective. Sorry Mr. Tyrell, you give up too much for too little return with no end point in sight.

darcy| 11.18.10 @ 7:52PM

If we have to offend anyone, let us at least offend those who are of the same class of person as those who slaughtered us on 9/11. Otherwise, we are all a mass of cowards.

And if they don't like it, and if CAIR and their cronies want to sue us, then we will simply up the stakes and DEMAND that all muslims be deported. To hell with mulitculturalism; it's only cover for marginalizing Western civilization and its values anyway.

John Navratil| 11.18.10 @ 10:15AM

Perhaps Bob Tyrrell can be our designated patsy!

TURK| 11.18.10 @ 10:15AM

I predict that on the morrow, RET will admit his hoax and all of the preceeding comments will be rendered moot. It's Drudges fault? Ho Ho Ho!

Sam Vaughn| 11.18.10 @ 10:18AM

Tyrell seems to be jealous that Drudge not he played a role in fanning the flames of a fire that was already smoldering. If we profiled for Muslim terrorists instead of granny's in wheel-chairs we'd be on the right track. When was the last time a Catholic nun blew herself up or flew a plane into a building? Everybody can see it everytime they go through the airport this has nothing to do with security, just pure intimidation of law-abiding Americans by an out-of-control federal government......

Anthony| 11.18.10 @ 10:22AM

Bob tells us that all this is necessary because we are "at war with savages". Yes indeed, problem is, you can't tell the savages without a score card anymore.
We know about the usual suspects, those who cannot be named or identified by the big " I", or "M", due to political correctness, but what about the savages on the left, such as big Sis, Pistoli and Obozo?.
I would have a whole different attitude about this intrusive process at airports if I was able to see a big screen with Islamic terrorists ( or Nancy Pelosi) being waterboarded as fair warning to ALL our enemies, foreign and domestic. Unfortunately, due to the insanity of political correctness, and the fact that the Democrats still exist, this will not happen, hence, Drudge states the obvious, that the terrorists ( both the Islamic and Democrat variety) have indeed won.
Sadly, it ain't the '70s anymore, with comfortable seats, ashtrays for smoking, comely "stews" to flirt with, while standing in the back of the plane, with a smoke and a drink, radical Islam safely back in the 7th Century where it belonged and the Democrat party still with a bit of sanity.
So I guess, if I must be groped to avoid terror at 30,000 ft, and the likes of Sarah Palin are not available to perform the task at hand, perhaps as a form of compensation for this humiliation, we could bring all these past comforts back, including cheap booze, not the $7.00 rip off we get now.
I think it's only fair, after being manhandled, that a drink and and smoke be in order.
P.S. Bob, you're not having a good day when Ed White agrees with you.

justasimplepatriot| 11.18.10 @ 10:41AM

It is difficult to be civil in this discussion. The "thinking public" recognize this is forcing us to be submissive NOT to serve safety - but rather to advance the cause of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.

It infuriates me to see 3-year-olds subjected to this while people who are far more likely to be a security threat are allowed to go through.

I REFUSE to check my brain at the door and accept this as normal human behavior. If early man had adopted this attitude toward acknowledging and reacting to threats in his environment, he would have died off long ago. THAT is why we are angry!

"Why sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast!" - Lewis Carrol - Through the Looking Glass.

John| 11.18.10 @ 10:48AM

Poor logic and complete misunderstanding of the deeper issues. And, ironically, I'm guessing he hopes to get Drudge to link to this...

JeffW| 11.18.10 @ 10:49AM

Mr. Tyrrelle.

I respect your work and your opinion and usually agree with you but on this item we will never agree. Yes, we are at war and measures must be taken. Let's start by copying the most successful airline security out there, the Israelis, not by re-inventing the wheel due to political correctness. We can not say profiling is illegal and against our rights yet be told they can pat us down because we gave up our rights when we bought the air ticket. Can not have it both ways. If we were to travel back in time to WWII do you think Germans were profiled and watched closely while traveling? I would bet money on it. If the enemy is known why would you not take a closer look at those that fit that description? There are better methods out there than humilating people for the sake of conveinence. TSA is not the only allowed certified security allowed by the goverment for airport operators. A few smaller airports (Orlando Sanford Airport, being the first) are opting to use one of the other 5 private screening firms out there. Want to bet they do not go down this same road? We need to increase our security but not by giving up our liberties, where do you draw the line? What's next, if they pat you down and are not satisfied can they take you to a room and strip search you? Sorry but on this I disagree with you on many levels.

-They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin

Doctor Right| 11.18.10 @ 10:50AM

With all due respect, Mr. Tyrell...RUBBISH!!!

None of this would be necessary if our Government had the intestinal fortitude to do what's necessary to stop Islamic terrorists from boarding airplanes:

PROFILING!

To wit:

1. If you come from a predominately Muslim country, then prepare to be scrutinized.
2. If you are dressed like a Muslim in traditional Muslim garb, then prepare to be scrutinized.
3. If your name is Mohammed, or Osama, or Saddam, or has an "al" in it between your first name and your surname, then prepare to be scrutinized.
4. If you have recently visited any nation on the terrorist watch list without official purposes (business, etc), then prepare to be scrutinized.
5. If you match any of the prior 4 criteria, and only bought a one-way ticket, then prepare to be scrutinized.
5. If you look suspicious (meaning you look like someone who might be a terrorist) then prepare to be scrutinized.
6. If you're speaking Arabic at the airport, then prepare to be scrutinized.
7. If you're reading a Koran while waiting to board, then prepare to be scrutinized.

Finally, if any of the above points offend you, then you should take the advice of the Department of Homeland Security's top lesbian, and choose an "alternative means of travel".

Or...Simply stay home, and don't visit the USA!

Regardless, rather than groping Nuns, or forcing mothers to sample breast milk, or feeling my junk...THERE'S A BETTER WAY.

Texas Mom 2012| 11.18.10 @ 10:54AM

I feel very strongly that the problem is that the government does not seem to be willing to acknowledge the problem. If 100% of terrorists using airplanes as weapons are Muslims why are the rest of us being searched invasively?

Why can't the rest of us apply and pay for a background security clearance with a biometric eyescan and thumbprints? Security check can allow us to issue a flyer pass insured by company issuing the pass.

I had pneumonia and bronchitis frequently as a child and had many lung x-rays. In 1986 I had an accident that has resulted in dozens of surgeries with another multitude of x-rays. Plus one knee replacement and an ankle fused thus far.

I would prefer to avoid more unnecessary exposure to radiation as all kinds of cancers run in my family. But when we last flew in January as a family, of course the metal detector went off. I was again subjected to the back of the hand pat down. It was uncomfortable, humiliating and infuriating. I DO NOT fit the PROFILE of a terrorist. There has not been a green eyed terrorist period. I imagine that the front of the palm technique will be much worse so I will reluctantly go through the scanner. We have already bought our tickets to fly to Utah for skiing but it will be the last plane trip we take until this nonsense is stopped. Had planned to fly to the Carribean for 25 year anniversary next year but not going to happen in this atmosphere of insanity.

I really have a problem with the fact that so far all of this crap has not stopped a single terrorist from getting on an airplane, thank the good lord that so far they have all been incompetent boobs.

Unfortunately, my husband to forced to frequently fly for business all over the world, including Saudi Arabia and Russia, the Phillipines and many other countries so I guess his cancer risk has just gone up. He has blue eyes... And no terrorist who hijacked planes has had blue eyes.

In short, our current system is pablum for the
masses, it hasn't enhanced our security and has caused millions of us who do not fit the profile of all the previous hijackers or suicide bombers to be searched UNREASONABLY to maintain political correctness. So I will now after this final flying vacation exercise my right to avoid this invasion by NOT FLYING anymore. Unfortunately hubby will continue to have to fly. Sorry Parc City, Utah, you are not within driving distance so this will be our last trip and New Mexico ski trips are in our future.

Thomas| 11.18.10 @ 12:32PM

Don't fall into the trap of assuming that all aircraft hijackers and bombers are young, Middle Eastern Muslim, men. Robert Reid, the shoe bomber, to name just one, was an upper middle class American of European origin.And, while all of the early suicide bombers were male, now the women are blowing themselves up as well.

Though, to date all the identified hijackers and bombers have been Muslim, exactly how do you reliably test for someone's religious beliefs?

darcy| 11.18.10 @ 8:01PM

Texas Mom 2012:

Ignore Thomas. All his points were shot down earlier in this thread. He's really becoming quite tiresome.

Mel Torme| 11.18.10 @ 11:45PM

"exactly how do you reliably test for someone's religious beliefs?"

Pork and beans comes to mind first, but I could think of many ways, Sheep-man.

MikeN| 11.18.10 @ 10:55AM

You know Muslims are exempt from the new security procedures?

RCV| 11.18.10 @ 12:32PM

No, they are not. More internet nonsense.

ddn| 11.18.10 @ 4:08PM

If they are not restricted by policy, they sure are by practice. I fly alot. I am disgusted to see little old ladies and grandpas being frisked and yelled at while young middle-eastern looking men breeze by. I see muslim women with about three layers of clothing walk through with nary a second look.

Trailboss| 11.18.10 @ 10:57AM

Mr. Tyrrell, It is OK to negotiate on strategy but never on principle. The past and current TSA approach violates basic conservative principles and is an incompetent strategy. When it comes to airport security, you have to start with the premise that 99.9999% of all travers are not and never will be threats. The strategy must be directed toward the .00001%. Anything else is a show or security theater to play on the evening news. It is expensive government gravy. Conservatives must new be satisfied with show, theater, or government gravy.

darcy| 11.18.10 @ 8:03PM

Is this what they meant by shovel-ready jobs and projects?

JT| 11.18.10 @ 10:58AM

Tyrell is a statist hack.

It is people like him which will result in Mitch Romney as president.

Big government creeps.

TURK| 11.18.10 @ 10:59AM

IDIOTS!!!! You are all so taken up with your beutiful countenances as you gaze in the mirror at yourselves! You miss the point! RET is pulling your leg. I repeat---He is making asses of all of you. All of you are really dumb. I say dumb. Dumb!!!!!!!!!!!

Trailboss| 11.18.10 @ 11:19AM

Turk, I hope you are right!!! If it is true, I accept the title idiot, ass, etc but I will feel better.

rjh| 11.18.10 @ 11:20AM

If this is Mr. Tyrrell's attempt at leg pulling and satire, he is not very good at it. You'll note that I completed my comment without calling anyone an idiot, an ass, or dumb...very nice.

Mel Torme| 11.18.10 @ 11:21AM

No, Turk, it's not satire. I just read it again to make sure. This guy is serious about being a statist asswipe.

BTW, what's the mirror got to do with it?

Finbarr Moran| 11.18.10 @ 12:22PM

I agree with Mel. I also read it twice and I honestly do not see a joke. And, once again, I have been reading RET for years -- my first conservative book was his excellent survey history of modern conservatives, The Conservative Crack-up.

If he's kidding he should leave that sort of thing to Rush who does it more artfully.

Finbarr Moran| 11.18.10 @ 3:17PM

I wonder if Brooks or Noonan ghost-wrote this ?

Maybe the TAS server got hacked and ACORN wrote it?

sjalsevac| 11.18.10 @ 11:02AM

I don't usually participate in comment sections where a fair number of respondents use foul language and personal attacks. However, this issue is too important to ignore.

This article by Emmet Tyrrell is very unexpected on American Spectator. I could not disagree more.

Since 9/11 I have been dismayed by the demeaning harassment of very obviously non-threatening air passengers at airports. My wife and I have had to endure humiliating searches of ourselves and our carry on materials when it would be obvious to anyone that we are not the remotest threat to safety. Even more serious has been the similar harrassment of children, those even older than us and handicapped persons. It is all wrong, the vast majority obviously totally useless to anyone with a modicum of intelligence and a serious violation of our dignity. As well, it is a massive waste of taxpayers dollars and a massive cost to the economy in lost time and other costs to the flying public, their businesses and for the airline industry.

And yet, so much of the public submits to this like mindless sheep, bleating, "It makes me feel safer". That is what one passenger told right me after we had endured this nonsense in another one of those airport personal assaults. I looked at her in amazement. Her statement made absolutely no sense.

Searching, frisking and delaying her could not have possibly made her and almost everyone on that flight any safer. In fact, it was all a fraud, as most of these security procedures are. They defy reason, other than that these airport endurance tests are conditioning the public to accept more and more unwarranted loss of their freedoms.

It is rather scary. And I blame Joe public for so meekly and foolishly going along with the lunacy. The emperor, or the TSA, has no clothes. And this is not limited to the USA. The same fraudulent abuse of passengers is happening in airports in other nations in response to bullying demands by the US gov't for such procedures to be followed for all flights to the US or even those that just overfly the US.

The entire airport security system needs a major and rapid overhaul to ensure the dignity and rights of all passengers and to far better actually ensure the security of flying.

Gill O’Teen ✝✡$| 11.18.10 @ 11:10AM

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety,” is a quote oft attributed to a certain Philadelphia Printer at http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin. His wise words still echo most profoundly 235 years later.

c-ass sunstein is currently the mis-administrator of the tyrannosoros wrecks dee sea vacation home orifice of mis-information and iregulatory affairs. This kommie berserker co-wrote the minor 2008 textbook “Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness”. This piece of bilge builds a case for controlling human behavior by a series of nudges not unlike cattle prods which are designed to control the movement of the herd. This malicious kommie is one of the most influential minds in beavisbud’s administration. New airport security is nothing more than a nudge designed to raise the level of what free Americans will tolerate. Personally, I would rather roam free across the open prairie with my dogs and gun exposed to the attacks of wolves and mountain lions than be nudged onto the reservation for my safety.

That said, I’m off to the local airport and massage parlor where all my tensions will be relieved by the capable hands of the TSA. They put the frisk in frisky.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡$
Don’t Tread on Me.
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
“[A] great Empire, like a great Cake, is most easily diminished at the Edges.” - attributed to that same Philly Printer at the same source.
Only 794 days to go

loulou| 11.18.10 @ 11:17AM

Ask for an opposite sex pervert, I mean agent. That'l confuse them.

Tim the Enchanter| 11.18.10 @ 12:21PM

Gill O'Teen: the "tyrannosoros wrecks" coinage is brilliant!

Gill O’Teen ✝✡$| 11.18.10 @ 1:37PM

Just a note in defense of Matt Drudge, who certainly does not need my feeble voice squeaking in his defense. “The Drudge Report” is an excellent source of links to topical stories of the day. I try to keep up with the Irish meltdown, inflation and other economic news. Mr. Drudge has proved a great source of such information. At no cost to myself, as he is currently funded by his advertisers per click. Thus it is in his interest to provide links to stories folks are actually interested in. Great lesson in Capitalism here. Just like Mr. Limbaugh, Drudge earns every penny he earns. Unlike Limbaugh, Drudge does not opine, he simply links. Those not appreciating what he does are free to not visit his site, and more importantly are not compelled to click on any posted ad depriving him of that single per click payment. Those not appreciating the Cape Girardeau Genius are not required to listen to his show. More importantly if he is ever found to be in error, challenge him on the facts.

Another point I overlooked earlier is that beavisbud is the master distractor. Whenever something like pubic pitty-pat uproars the public, be assured there are two or three even more sinister plots behind the teleprompter, and they will all be sold as necessary for securing the blessings of liberty and prosperity for us and our non-aborted posterity.

Gill O’Teen ✝✡$
Don’t Tread on Me.
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
Pat-a-bum, pat-a-bum, nappy's man.
Pat me ol’ bum as fast as you can;
Pat it and pinch it and grade it as prime,
Just get it on the plane by departure time.
Based on a Mother Goose rhyme.
Only 794 days to go

DanJ| 11.18.10 @ 11:16AM

"Doubtless in time we shall have a technological fix for airport security. It seems we always have in the past. Until then, we shall have to live like the Israelis."

I originally thought you had written a satire here, but I couldn't find the punch line. Come on, RET -- acting like the Israelies is exactly what we aren't doing. The Israelis are much better at screening for the person, not the "contraband." We the equitable Americans can abide profiling, so we submit five-year-olds and Norwegian-American grandmothers to an X-Ray or worse. TSA has my permission to do a full cavity search on every flyer once they document ONE attempted attack on our airlines conducted by anyone other than a male, age 18-45, who is a crazy Arab or African Islamic freak. (But you are right about one thing, Drudge is to blame...)

DanJ| 11.18.10 @ 11:17AM

Should have said, "we CAN'T abide profiling..."

rodval| 11.18.10 @ 11:17AM

I don't usually comment but Mr Tyrrell is wrong this time.
We are giving up freedom to preserve freedom?
For the daily business traveler the radiation is significant.
A very good discussion of profiling in law enforcement is found in American Thinker by Selwyn Duke today. This includes quotes by Walter Williams. (Talk about Thinkers vs. Name Callers!)

Why do we treat al our citizens as potential criminals when the real criminals make no secret of who they are? There is nothing wrong with profiling and we better wake up.

David Williams| 11.18.10 @ 11:25AM

I think the airport security issue can be resolved easily and quickly: make Ollie North head of TSA.

Brad| 11.18.10 @ 11:35AM

I disagree wholeheartedly with Emmett Terryll on the position taken in his article. In this case Ann Coulter has a far better view. See her linked article below. And who cares if 80% of those polled approve. Who were the people polled? Do they fly? Who undertook the poll? What was their agenda? From what I saw the poll was from the mainstream media that parrots the Government line. Emmett, do you trust what you hear from that source of popular narrative?

http://anncoulter.com/cgi-loca.....rticle=397

Barbara| 11.19.10 @ 12:41AM

Amen to Ann! As someone who did fly this year and whose husband flies frequntly, I can attest to her take on the flying population. Let's imitate El Al and train drug dogs.

J.P. Travis| 11.18.10 @ 11:46AM

Mr. Tyrrell, use your head. God put it there for a reason. I work with people who fly once or twice a week. If the government admits - ADMITS! - that the x-ray exposure is 1/30 to 1/50 of a chest x-ray, then these people will be getting at least the equivalent of three chest x-rays every year for the rest of their working careers. That's in addition to the normal medical & dental x-rays they may get. Plus, since the government lies to us constantly and we have a Minnesota physicist telling us the exposure is actually higher, the danger from radiation is obvious.

WL| 11.18.10 @ 11:53AM

Tyrell..you are usually right on your point...

This time you are WRONG.

WL| 11.18.10 @ 11:57AM

Furthermore Sir...

Where do you think the conservative movement would be without some like Drudge out there consolidating information for people to keep up with the main headlines in a busy world...to be informed so that they are now starting to GET IT (IE 2010 elections.............)?????????

Sorry Mr. Tyrell. You are VERY dissapointing with this swipe at drudge....

Sorry American Spectator...I like your blog
But when it comes to info. distribution that helped our cause come alive in the last 2 years.....

Your net effect was about equal to a hair on Drudge's %*#!!!!!!

mustang1b| 11.18.10 @ 12:01PM

Mr. Pistole is one arrogant government SOB.

Tim the Enchanter| 11.18.10 @ 12:18PM

Mr. Tyrrell, like many here who comment, I, too, am a long-time Spectator fan, back to the days of the old 11x17 tabloid format, but I have to either express my disbelief and disappointment of your "going native", or hope that this is indeed meant as tongue-in-cheek. I hope the latter, as there is a dangerous inconsistency in you if this article is sincere. Plus, as many here have alluded to, the TSA appears to be the first down payment of the fulfillment of Il Douche's desire for a national civilian police force.

CalMark| 11.18.10 @ 12:29PM

For long stretches, R. Emmett sounds sane and robustly conservative. Then he writes something like this and descends into leftie ruling-class territory.

Where does he get this 81% approval rate for nudie-scanners? No doubt from the same planet where Pelosi gets the analysis that she had nothing to do with massive Democrat losses.

Apart from the cancer risk and indignity, there's the small matter of Constitutional Rights. Big Sis keeps talking about "law enforcement practices," as though travelers are all criminals.

Get a clue, Bob Tyrrell!

Anommynous| 11.18.10 @ 12:44PM

Do all those people who are "insouciant" about the scanners really know exactly how revealing they are? Don't fault Drudge for putting the info out there. Trust individuals to make their own decisions, to balance their safety and their convenience and to make the determination for themselves whether or not they are comfortable with the security measures. That is the conservative way.

Terry Wilkinson| 11.18.10 @ 12:48PM

[Tyrrell said]
"Doubtless in time we shall have a technological fix for airport security. It seems we always have in the past. Until then, we shall have to live like the Israelis. Be vigilant and thwart terror. They do it all the time, and an Israeli neurotic about personal liberty is just as neurotic as any American. "

[I reply]:
Uh, Bob - the Israelis don't do patdowns.

Frank| 11.18.10 @ 12:49PM

Much ado about nothing!
Flying only makes the news because news people get paid to fly.
I can't aford to fly and I don't know anyone who can.
If all the passenger aircraft in the world were grounded forever, it would be of no consequence to me or to anyone I know.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 7:40PM

Frank, do you take the subway, bus or train? If you do you may find these same tactics facing you one day soon.

Grounded For Now| 11.18.10 @ 1:04PM

Apparently, T Jr doesn't believe in the 4th amendment and is wholly against fiscal responsibility (we spend millions on these useless scanners to "prevent terrorism" when you are more likely to choke to death on a chicken bone than die in a terrorist attack). This is truly a bi-partisan outrage. The anger can be experienced on sites ranging from Michelle Malkin to DailyKos. This is government sponsored sexual assault and the number of stories coming out about abuses are disturbing. The porn-o-scopes are a boondoggle - a scam to make money for former Homeland Security Head Michael Chertoff - the guy who first ordered them, and now conveniently works for the company who makes them. Nice work if you can get it.

The groping (and I fly a lot) is extreme and degrading and clearly meant to be so horrible that the traveler will only undergo it once before choosing the scanner out of fear of repeating the experience. Sadly, scanners carry cancer risks and provide cheap thrills to the mouth breathers ("Heads up I got a cutie here") at the TSA. I certainly won't be subjecting my 9 year old daughter to this trauma just so she can have turkey at grandma's this year.

If the airlines are always precariously near bankruptcy, this ought to push them right over the edge. I'm done flying until sanity returns to the airports.

Bring back the 4th amendment. This TSA procedure does nothing towards halting terrorism. It is just Chertoff's pension plan.

Perusha The Offender| 11.18.10 @ 1:08PM

RET's "pat me, pat me" article is a PUT ON!

Americans have been "negotiating" airplane security for decades, and every new way terrorists find to blow up their enemies---US---just heightens the entire do-or-die situation, and the DISCUSSION.

This comment section is the longest I’ve ever seen on this website.

There is an extreme technique to unblock any negotiations that have been in a longtime stalemate---toss a “grenade” into the room. That is, make some crazy “offer” or “demand” to get the ball rolling.

I think RET is just doing that.

Nixon went to China, RET has gone to the Big Sis position to show us the insanity.

Besides, all you “oldsters” out there, know that after too many years of “serious” involvement with the issues of the day, one can tend to become childlike.

Also, in order to stand out, RET has certainly chosen a position guaranteed to get HIM noticed, so look for HIM on some TV programs, which wouldn’t bother to have HIM on if he copied Coulter.

darcy| 11.18.10 @ 8:24PM

"This comment section is the longest I’ve ever seen on this website," writes Perusha.

Then I guess you were't here during the summer for the Codevilla article on the Ruling Class versus the Country Class; sad you missed it.

Saigon Warrior| 11.18.10 @ 1:08PM

Just because the government says it safe, doesn't make it so. I've been to the war and there's no such thing as 'safe'. If someone wants to kill you they will

Joe D.| 11.18.10 @ 1:11PM

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr, I guess I am part of Drudges 19%. So shut up. I think this is an extreme invasion of my and my wifes privacy. How dare someone touch her or me in our privates other than ourselves or our doctors. There is no constitutional right for them to do this. There other option, just ask the Israelis or Germanys. Ben Franklin once said, anyone who gives up liberty/freedom for security deserves neither.

So how dare you as a conservative agree with this and for them to look at us naked. This is just as bad.

And by the way, why should Muslim women be exempt when my wife a Christain should not. Her modisty is just as important to myself and God as theres appears to be. Muslim including women are the problems not Christains.

Brandon| 11.18.10 @ 1:14PM

Mr. Tyrrell, you joke about enjoying a pat down? It's as if you already KNOW it's inappropriate, but you want to laugh it off like you'd enjoy it in some perverse way.

Then, you go on to site Israeli security? They do not operate like this at all! From my understanding, they use intelligence and profiling, not virtual strip searches. Your own example is in direct opposition to your point!

steve scofield| 11.18.10 @ 1:15PM

couldn't possibly disagree more ---------this whole thing is a another useless way for the government to make everything more difficult by solving nothing
reality is if you want to stop terrorists you have to profile for terrorists
i think we pretty much know who they are don't you??
it's not a secret who's wanting to blow us up
i bet dollars to dimes these people are sitting over there laughing their little terrorist butts off about our "security measures" ------------i know i woud be
profile -------that and complete cargo checks are the only way you have any chance in hell of stopping planes blowing up and falling out of the sky
anything else is just a complete waste of time and resources
'nuff said

ONTIME| 11.18.10 @ 1:19PM

Blame? You blame Drudge for speaking out on intrusion of your 4th amendment rights of unreasonable search and siezure, for being herded like farm annimals into a confined area and told these illegal search procedures were for your good, did you expect a rabbies shot or maybe one for anthrax to be given to you after thse conditions were met?

Are you happy that people like Chertoff and Soros are making a fortune from the tax payers after selling the tax payers their X-ray machines, do you like complicity and collusion in the government withinsider information being used to steal? Are you happy with your conversion to being a sheeple and your introduction to communism 101? You certainly have all the earmarks. Would you like to rename America and rid us of that pesky Constitution and Bill of Rights?

Folks like you keep, people like myself awake at night trying to think of a way for you to use that underworked mind of yours to figure this out...government is not the solution it is the problem. Maybe you don't deserve freedom or security if you do not respect the freedoms.

Paul| 11.18.10 @ 1:22PM

We now have scanners, paid for by stimulus money, and extreme pat-downs if one refuses the scanner method. Given the immense volume of traffic through major airports, one really questions the validity of any of the inspection. One can put and explosive material in toothpaste or small (approved) botttle with the right knowledge fabricate a bomb once on the plane. TSA screeners have NO training to identify such mechanisms nor the ability to screen the thousands passing through security. What happened between 9/11 and today that made it necessary for police state tactics make an individual feel like a criminal. Three incidents occurred but all were discovered by intelligence not by pat downs or scanners.

Adheeb| 11.18.10 @ 1:26PM

"The scanners are opposed on two grounds, health and privacy. It is claimed by some that the radiation emitted by the scanners is dangerous. The government denies it, saying more radiation awaits passengers on their flight than comes from scanners."

After WWII many of our own troops were dilliberately exposed to radiation during atomic bomb testing and were told something similar to the above. When did our goverment get honest? I'm going to write to my congressman, Charlie Rangel and ask.

Brandon| 11.18.10 @ 1:47PM

HEAR HEAR!

Ryan| 11.18.10 @ 1:36PM

Whoever wrote this is a thumb-sucking slave. I went through the groping, they lift your scrotum and penis up and curl their fingers under your butthole and armpits, go ahead let them do it to your wife and kids if you even have any, you guys can go ahead into the work camps and body pits too later down the road, leave me out of it. Slaves like you make it harder for the rest of us who won't put up with it. All the terror up to this point has come out to be staged anyways, anyone who isn't sucking their thumbs connected to a TV all day knows this.

DLC| 11.18.10 @ 1:41PM

@Adheeb - hah, that was good. I agree that Tyrell's article is nonsense except here: "The scanners and the pat-downs are a dreadful threat to freedom and personal dignity..." He writes that we must be like the Israelis. One of the safest airports in the world is Tel Aviv. No body scanners at all: http://www.monstersandcritics......ng-Feature . So why not be like them after all? They use a better and more sane method.

DLC| 11.18.10 @ 1:44PM

And the Israelis do not use "pat-down" gropings of private parts. Be outraged people at this violation of law by our own government!

Robert | 11.18.10 @ 1:51PM

Yes, but the Israelies also racially profile as well. They are not stupid after all and are interested in survival.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 7:43PM

The Israelis do NOT racially profile, they psychologically profile. Wise up.

RCV| 11.20.10 @ 12:44AM

The Israelis do not do so, as anyone who flys to and from Israel knows. They are carefully evaluating each traveler individually, looking for single males, nervous or suspicious behavior, travel patterns from passports, and darn good intelligence. They are no more likely to focus on an elderly Arab woman or a family of three Lebanese children than your kids orvgrandmother. And they spend much time interviewing, which is their prime inspection technique, along with very thorough hand examination of the luggage and carryons of people of interest. They're using their brains.

Patriot| 11.25.10 @ 1:00AM

When did you pull your head out of your ass, troll?

Frisbee| 11.18.10 @ 1:43PM

This article is wrongheaded. First of all Walter, how could you go for the easy giggle like that? Sarah Palin? Of course we're all thinking the same thing. I'd like to choose which gorgeous babe pats me down too (and can I return the favor).... But come on! For you to actually go there is really low. And what about your wife and daughters? Who's going to pat them down, and for how long? I will never read anything you write again in the same way. Your principles are muddled by your giggling pervert glasses.

Frisbee| 11.18.10 @ 1:45PM

oops - I said "Walter", I meant R Emmet Tyrrell

AliceL.| 11.18.10 @ 1:45PM

I disagree with Tyrrell. We are being treated like prisoners and Big Sis is the warden! How about some terrorist profiling? How about killing more terrorists? Somebody sneaks explosives into his shoes so now we all have to remove our shoes! Somebody uses liquids to make a bomb, so now we can forget our bottled water - unless we spend an arm and a leg at the places that sell it inside the secured area of the airport. Sorry - this is abuse of Americans citizens. Period.

Jim| 11.18.10 @ 1:47PM

The only people who escape full-body scanning or groping are the people who belong to the nationalities and religion most likely to perpetrate terror attacks.

It is shit-headed. There's no more polite word for it, though there are a few I cannot print here.

Robert | 11.18.10 @ 1:48PM

I am surprised that a man I respect as a conservative should draft an article that belittles the the freedoms and liberties Americans used to enjoy. His piece, pardon the pun, suffers from a disregard of the facts.
Here are my criticisms.

1. The author suggests we have a duty to respect the governments statements with regard to the scanner. However, it is beyond dispute that TSA pursues a policy of simply lying to the American public. For example, TSA respresentatives told Americans that the scanners were incapable of preserving copies, and would not, in any event be kept in the interests of privacy. We know now that this is a lie.

2. The scanner is infinitely more revealing than TSA represents, another lie. The scanner can details the genitalia of male and female bodies and may be inverted to produce a color copy indistinguishable from porn.

3. That a majority of people are willing to submit to this humiliation does not at all mean that I must also do so. The vast majority of 1930s Germans worshiped Hitler, and need I ad that a majority if intellectually and morally challenged Americans voted for O'Bama.

4. If the author were interested in looking he would find that handicapped people, and those with surgical metals in their body are treated with particular disdain.

The logic of the invasion by which Americans are treated like cattle, if the government were to follow through would require anal and vaginal examinations as well as terrorists have entered planes carrying explosives in their anal cavities, or is this perhaps, or perhaps not to much of an invasion of privacy even for the author.

Finally, there is a way to end this charade simply by engaging in the constitutionally permitted necessity in this case of Racial Profiling. The Supreme Court expressly permits racial profiling where it serves a legitimate state or federal government purpose. Certainly, the survival of American citizens meets that test. Instead of examining three year old children, the governmen should center its search on Muslim, primarilly males, but females too, between the ages of 17 and 45. We would be a lot safer.

Jerry Howard| 11.18.10 @ 1:49PM

I am shocked by this article. I have long considered R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. one of the most consistent stalwarts of conservative commentary. What happened?

How can anyone argue that we are for individual freedom and at the same time defend a policy of submission to any level of intimate molestation that some arrogant bureaucrat claims to consider "standard policy."

What is next - naked group ice water showers and delousing "in the interest of public safety" before we are allowed to travel by the public transportation we have to take because private cars might lead to global warming making snail darters uncomfortable?

There is no recorded historical record of any government, or any police arm of a government, ever once reaching a level of control that it considered enough.

Do you think for a second that if (as is almost certain) Al Qaeda makes the next logical step - which they have already done in other countries - of resorting to internal vaginal/rectal suicide bomber attacks ---- that our current TSA "Czars" will not institute random body cavity searches of politically correct, i.e., non-profiled and therefore almost totally useless selected "citizens?"

SF_Exile| 11.18.10 @ 1:50PM

The terrorists have won! They're all sitting in their collective compounds watching this farce and laughing their heads off. They have whipped us into a frenzy with this bit of Kabuki theatre, their victory already assured. Watch the stupid Americans chase their tails!

We're allowing this needless and results-less assault on our personal freedoms to happen because somewhere along the line we all decided to to chicken and not say something. To ignore the obvious absurdity of it all and not say something, all because we're afraid to be labeled as intolerant or some other word du jour which would portray us as 'ignorant' or an unsophisticated rube. It's a disgrace that it takes a poor, screaming, three year old toddler to make the rest of us see how useless this whole thing is.

The average American knows who these agitators are. The average American knows when something doesn't pass the smell test. Any time a potential situation has been thwarted it's been due to good, old-fashioned human observation. The TSA and the rest of these measures did not stop the Underwear Bomber - hell, the man's own father contacted authorities and was ignored! How is all this supposed to help?

Watch the TSA people the next time you're in an airport. They scrutinize THINGS - passports, driver's licenses, bottles of baby formula. They never look at PEOPLE - the hyper guy that's sweating just a bit too much, the guy with no carryon luggage whatsoever, dressed oddly.

It's going to take a full on revolt to get this foolishness to end. It needs to happen now.

Robert| 11.18.10 @ 1:50PM

Sorry R.Emmett, but you're waaay on the wrong side of this one. While the whole world laughs at images and reports of nuns and 3 year old little girls being groped in the name of national security in the US, Israel manages to profile people rather than crotches.

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.18.10 @ 1:52PM

Emmett,
Cancel my subscription if my comments are censored....and called spam.

CJohnson| 11.18.10 @ 1:54PM

I am certain below the 80th percentile is where this fellow scores too.

Bob Armstrong| 11.18.10 @ 1:59PM

Welcome to the Sheeple , Emmitt .

Anything but recognize our defense of anti-democratic zionist supremacism ethnic cleansing against all our founding principles as the central motivator of the hatred directed against us .

Ron Paul brilliantly points out the useless absurdity of the TSA's sheep training : http://dailypaul.com/node/149693 .

Irishup| 11.18.10 @ 2:07PM

Mr. T usually nails it. But this was a big swing and miss. I was groped once by an obnooxious female TSA employee more than a year ago. But at least then, they were using the back of their hands when it came to my "junk." Now it is full on groping. They got my wife 3 times between the metal detectors and boarding ; all for the same flight. When the final molestation was in progress, my wife became suprisingly friendly with the groper. I asked her what was up with that and she said she saw the look on my face and saw what I was about to do and decided to save my from and assault or attempted strangulation charge, so she acted like everything is fine, but she made it clear it wasn't.
Now we are closing in on 60 and the closest thing to being subversive was my wife's going to to Greatful Dead concerts. Meanwhile, there were several truly scary people going through he line unscathed.
When this truly becomes about security, the scary people will be "inconvienenced", not the citizens. When the "swarthy middle easterners" start getting the brunt of the security efforts, maybe getting frisked every so often wouldn't piss me off so much. Until then, I will have no sympathy for any of the perverted government employees trying to get thier jollies at someone's wife's expense. But that's just me. Maybe if us people of Irish decent started causing all the trouble, we could also demand that anyone with red hair get a free pass or else.

Scott| 11.18.10 @ 2:08PM

With regard to the scanners, the medical objection is nonsense, and I agree with Mr. Tyrrell. Frankly, I consider the biggest problem with the scanners to be psychological scarring of the poor TSA personnel who have to view my form in its unclothed state -- I'm no Wilbur Whateley, but such a task still warrants hazard pay.

However, with regard to the pat downs, I've heard more than a few accounts of agents conducting not so much a pat down as what used to be called getting to second base. That I do object to -- despite Mr. Tyrrell's hopes, most TSA personnel resemble Joe Biden more than Sarah Palin.

Ron Paul| 11.18.10 @ 2:17PM

"Those that would give up essential LIBERTY for a little SECURITY deserve NEITHER!" -Benjamin Franklin

So what happens when one of these CIA-trained "terrorists" or government patsy decides to put a bomb up his rectum, board the plane and then have it go off like a little firecracker instead of BOOM? Is the next step in "Airport Security" going to be forced BODY CAVITY SEARCHES for everyone? Give an inch, and the government will gladly take A MILE!

OPT-OUT OF THE NAKED BODY SCANNERS!
RESIST THE GROPE-DOWN BY TSA GOONS!
STOP LIVING IN FEAR OF A CIA-PRODUCED BOOGEYMAN!

Watch the brilliant speech of Ron Paul STAND UP for ALL OF US! The ONLY person in Washington with a BRAIN! Stop getting suckered by those turds such as Palin, Romney, Newt, Huck. They don't give a SHITE about YOUR freedoms like RON PAUL does! RP 2012!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vjrNmlU9is

Margaret Blackwell| 11.18.10 @ 2:19PM

Please tell me this is a joke, Tyrell.

Mondo FRazier| 11.18.10 @ 2:21PM

I really couldn't believe you used the phrase "neurotic about personal liberty."

I'm hoping it was tongue-in-cheek.

When they take liberty and freedom away--as they have unceasingly, bit-by-bit done over the last 40 years--there will be no end to soothing, cooing voices advising how that loss of liberty is a "necessary thing, in fact, a good thing."

After reading your 1000s of words during the Boy Clinton years, I never thought that R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. would be one of the soothing coo-ers.

Mark in Idaho| 11.18.10 @ 2:52PM

You have lost me completely. When an American cannot refuse to be groped by some gay TSA ape, or refuse to be photographed naked for the enjoyment of some pervert at a TV screen, then we have "traded freedom for security" - and we deserve neither, and shall have neither. As far as I am concerned, American Spectator has gone insane, and I am opting out of it. Cancel my subscription, please.

Dan McGrath| 11.18.10 @ 3:01PM

If this is serious and a reflection of the point of view of the American Spectator, I don't think I'll bother reading it anymore.

John II| 11.18.10 @ 3:22PM

Not much to add to the energetic responses so far. But Mr. Tyrrell's temporary (I hope) romp in Lefty La-La land inspires me to use a favorite cliche of the smarmy Left:

I am saddened. Either Mr. Tyrrell has penned a misfiring attempt at irony, or Mr. Tyrrell has slipped his conservative rails. In either case, I am saddened.

Actually, I'm astonished. But it sounds so much more Lefty and smug to say I am saddened.

Anyhow, the airline pilots are suing the bastards, and that's a good start. Sooner or later, the TSA under the management of feebleminded Lefty politicos groping (so to speak) for non-judgmental formulae such as "man-caused disasters" would turn to, well, groping. It will get worse unless it gets stopped, now.

They have crossed the line, Bob. Wake up.

duck| 11.18.10 @ 4:09PM

I have always found that an un-civil liberal can be un-civil when addressing an un-civil conservative and be morally smug but when it occurs the other way around, the conservative becomes the doubly evil person. Hypocrisy always reigns supreme with the left.

There is also talk of using the scanners at shopping malls, public buildings, and other places where people frequent.

On another note, if one would do a little research, city, county, and state police are looking into using these 'nudie' scanners in their police work. There are already trucks carrying higher powered scanners driving around our streets and highways scanning people, places and things without anyone's knowledge or consent. These vans can scan into your car, into your home, into where you work. Privacy has gone by the wayside. So, those of you that wanted a brave new world, you are real close to getting it. 1984 is closer than you think....

http://blogs.forbes.com/andygr.....ving-vans/

http://legalift.wordpress.com/.....s-of-cars/

Sam Vaughn| 11.18.10 @ 4:22PM

I'm taking your salt away Mr. Tyrell, I know what's good for you and you don't.

Tim*| 11.18.10 @ 4:31PM

Tyrrell was just on Hannity & is adjusting his opinion, so we can temporarily put the rocks down & save them, until he gets a chance to redeem himself.

Ahhh Emmett, me bucko ya probably just got ahold of some bad whiskey that temporarily blinded your view.

Say Three Hail Mary's, make a good Act of Contrition and write A Redeeming Article.

Barbara| 11.19.10 @ 12:49AM

Thanks for the tip. I was thinking a Novena was in order - at least.

Mike_in_Kyiv| 11.18.10 @ 4:33PM

Let El Al take over all security from TSA. They know how to get the job done right and still keep a credible on-time schedule. The Jews have always had more to loose than anyone til 911. Stop this silly patdown stuff and look at the watch lists of bad guys who may be getting on the planes. The idea of what TSA wants to accomplish is fine, the methods and resulting discomfort is however outrageous.

Wayne Farrar| 11.18.10 @ 4:35PM

Mr. Tyrrell,
What a timid, compliant ‘subject’ you appear to be. First, the ruling class interject themselves into our private business transactions to seize any object by which we might even remotely be able to defend ourselves and our families while traveling. As if that weren’t bad enough, now they literally “strip” away our fourth amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure, threaten anyone who objects with a sexual assault or egregious civil fines, and all you have to say is ‘it’s for our own good’?
I can only speak for myself, but anyone who sexually assaults my wife or children, by “legal” means or otherwise, is liable to learn a thing or two about assault. As Ben Franklin so wisely stated, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
I enjoy your magazine and generally find myself in agreement with the political views you publish. However, in my humble opinion, you need to have your head examined on this one.

John McG| 11.18.10 @ 4:36PM

What an astonishingly ignorant piece. I wondered while reading it if someone hacked the web site and posed as Bob Tyrrell. It's true we are at war, Mr. Tyrrell, but I find it more helpful to fight the enemy than nuns and 3-yr old girls. Scanning and groping makes suspects of us all. Worse still, it makes no effort to determine *who* might be a terrorist, but simply *what* dangerous stuff might be carried on board. Hence the lengthening list of potential contraband, a useless substitute for looking a passenger in the eye. (And by the way, assessing each passenger individually in this way is not profiling. Everyone gets questioned.)

I had to read this piece twice to make sure Mr. Tyrrell was serious. The snide quip about Sarah Palin and the arch treatment of John Tyner seemed wholly out of character. It leaves me trusting his views a bit less, and feeling let down. It's not just regrettable, it's sad.

Thom| 11.18.10 @ 4:37PM

A.S.S.U.M.E ing Bob Tyrrell is to be taken seriously on this topic, I’ll take the “bait” on the off chance he has not lost his mind.

First, I would remind Bob that 9/11/2001 came out the way it did because the American public has been brainwashed by the “government” over several decades into believing they are here to “protect us” (from ourselves it would seem) and backs that up with threats of prosecution, fines and prison time if you interfere with “government’s” monopoly on the concept of “security”. Not only did the “government” brainwash the “flying” public in the need to be “sheeple” but it removed their inalienable right of self defense, which I hear is a Constitutional Right (except when the “government” says you have no Constitutional rights of course, making any possible defense problematic on 9/11/2001 after it was revealed for all to see that “government” claims of providing “security” are as vacuous as claims of an honest Democrat.

Second, those “savages”, on 9/11/2001 had no “bombs” and box cutters are less lethal than a Pyrex coffee pot to the face by someone that means it. No technology, short of full body deep x-rays are going to keep non metallic detonators off planes via passengers’ body cavities. Nothing the TSA currently does at the airport will stop those “savages” from walking in with 25lb bomb vest and killing hundreds at a time while thousands are packed in like “sheep” for the slaughter. The TSA has not discovered a single real “bomb” in their theater nor have they discovered several “fake” bombs sent through their façade testing their effectiveness. You don’t have to wonder what the outcome will be if they ever discover one at the check point with the smiling religion of peace owner attached with the remote detonator do we? I can see Janet DumbArse stating in the aftermath of that that the “system worked, it kept the bomb off the plane” or some such moron speak. Several known “terrorists” have walked right through their screens and onto planes multiple times but hey that’s ok until the bomb is already on the plane. To add insult to injury here, if this new technology were actually the answer to a real “problem” along with the sexual assault option then it would in fact be mandatory for all with no exceptions for any reason. You see King Obama and his family having to undergo these PC driven indignities to get on Air Force One there Bob? If not, please provide the justification for that? I’ve got a horde of SMART card proximity badges and alike just to be in the building I work and naturally the “government” will prosecute me if I don’t have these badges and associated ids on me every minute of the day at work but the moment I enter an airport I’m just another potential Islamic terrorist threat used to satisfy the needs of “government” to perpetuate the myth they are here to “protect” me. A lot of “sheeple” still buy into that myth.

Third, I’m bewildered by this statement and the ultimate contradiction with the rest of the article: “The terrorists can attack us any place, which is why I rather like the idea of citizens free to carry arms”. Tried carrying “arms” where you are most likely to be attacked by “terrorists” lately Bob? Airports, Schools, various government building are prime killing fields waiting to happen and in each case you have no right of self defense thus your wish here is moot and conflict with “government’s” compelling interest in keeping you safe by making it easier for the enemy to kill us in large numbers all the while growing its power over us at every level. All this takes place while the Post Office version of a security agency protests us from 3.1 ounces or more of explosives in my tooth paste, 50 lbs of high tech explosive rolls right in the front door at the airport and into the slaughter house lines and there is a fixation on my “junk” vs where the real problem is. As I have associations with the same people Bob knows in NC I have to laugh if Bob is actually serious about what he has written above. 9/11/2001 happened because “good men” did nothing when confronted by “evil” and fools have rushed in to fill the void left by that. 9/11/2001 was completely avoidable by the people on those aircraft. Why did all those “good men” do nothing (excluding the belated Flt 93 efforts) on those plane there Bob? Because they bought into the lie that trading some freedoms for the illusion of security is worth it and they didn’t want to get prosecuted for some arcane Federal law that stripes them of their inalienable rights. How did that work out there Bob? Those “savages” didn’t even have “bombs”.

As I said, if the measures are meaningful for valid security reasons, they would be mandatory with zero exceptions. Hamas used 10 year old children as both bomb carriers and bait to kill Israeli soldiers. Children make ideal proxies for this kind of mess. This is all PC Theater for the “sheeple”. If would be far easier to get everyone to just fly naked since as Bob said in the age of FACEBOOK, BUTTBOOK, MYJUNKBOOK everyone wants to display their “junk” for a price….. Maybe if TSA offers prizes for the best “junk” pictures that will improve compliance before the airline industry notes a drop in revenue…..

If this article is a serious attempt to justify the KeyStone Cops’ concept of catching these “savages” I’m not impressed. If this is satire, I’m equally not impressed. If as Bob says “we are at war” if would be nice for Bob to enlighten us on how disarming the masses wherever they assemble is fighting back. The people I call friends take “security” seriously, have the seen the enemy up close and personal and don’t fly any more. We know a joke when we see it. The TSA is where you go when you can’t get a job at the Post Office.

As to this statement, “We are at war with savages who sneak explosives on airplanes and turn them into bombs”, well in all due respect Bob, NO, they are at war with us; they use the planes as a flying bomb with no bombs aboard to kill 3000 people; we are at war with ourselves and unable to actually name, define and deal with the real enemy. You don’t win any war this way. We defecate on that which we say we are fighting for while the enemy laughs their arse off at our incompetence and timidity.

You don’t win this kind of fight embracing childish false utopian egalitarianism nonsense as we are so accomplished at. The TSA is just a reflection of how far we’ve fallen from our God given graces and dignity. If you are serious Tyrrell, I hope you are at the head of the line with Barney Franks’ TSA twin waiting when the “government” makes it mandatory to penetrate to the center of this matter looking for that last vestige of human dignity in order to keep us “safe” from those that will not be named or dealt with.

If this is a joke Tyrrell, I’m not laughing.

Wayne Farrar| 11.18.10 @ 5:36PM

Well said, Thom. I hate it that my children enter a 'free fire zone' every time they walk into their elementary school. That our 'betters' treat law-abiding citizens contemptiously while bowing low to our murderous enemies is proof positive that liberalism is a mental disorder.

Thom| 11.18.10 @ 5:45PM

Liberalism and its more advanced Marx cousins are what happens when you let adults remain as children mentally and give them the power of a loaded gun and no maturity to handle adult power. Ultimately it is a mental disorder because it is also built upon a stack of lies and once a liar starts lying they can't stop. Most can't handle the truth of just about anything and become the world's biggest frauds.... The current situation is just the tip of a very large iceberg underneath.....

Etiquette Man| 11.18.10 @ 6:40PM

Hear! Hear!

This is an outstanding post. I wish I had written it! ;-)

Thank you.

Pat| 11.18.10 @ 4:46PM

Kind of a “snippy” article – what is it with self-nominated “Opinion Makers” who can’t stand anyone else telling us what to think? Drudge, Rush, Ann – they have their critics and mostly those critics are jealous souls who desperately want to be Drudge, Rush or Ann. Personally, I’m suspicious of those who have an initial instead of a first name – now what exactly are they hiding?

“R.” Tyrell claims he is neither a scientist nor a constitutional scholar but he knows what he knows. And mainly what he knows is that most Americans approve of these airport security devices. Actually, most Americans approve of not getting blown up, set on fire or having the airplane carrying them to Grandmother’s house being hijacked and driven into the nearest tall building. And that desire breeds a lot of tolerance when it comes to being wanded, going shoeless, “patted” down or showing their naked bodies to the guy under the scanner’s hood - plus being told what to do by folks who can’t qualify for a better job than serving drinks and peanuts on a moving airplane.

And the reason some overweight guard in a too tight uniform and Sam Browne belt is vigorously wanding somebody’s grandmother from Boise is to preserve this absurd notion we’re all equally qualified to be “terrorists” in the eyes of the TSA. Nobody really believes the elderly lady with the hip implant which made the security arch go “beep” is actually hiding explosives in her girdle - but what the heck, we just can’t single out young Muslim men precisely because they’re young Muslim men – isn’t that written in the Living Constitution somewhere?

The Israelis think our airport security is a joke – but we give them plenty of Foreign Aid so who cares what they think? And our government experts claim they can definitely stop terrorists at the airport but trying to stop uneducated Mexicans from waltzing across our southern border is just impossible.

Despite what “R.” believes, it’s simply a bad situation. We have to fly, we don’t want to arrive in multiple pieces so we put up with a lot of indignities in the process. Let’s not sing love songs to the TSA, they do their job, sometimes badly and we’re each secretly praying we’re not on that plane when the TSA is having a bad hair day by energetically wanding grandmothers while ignoring the guy on the “watch list”.

Mark In Irvine| 11.18.10 @ 4:55PM

The scanners are a small price to pay for doing what it takes to catch lunatics trying to board airplanes with explosive devices. Nobody really cares about your "junk" - yours, mine, his, hers - it's all pretty much the same anyway, so get over your self-centered phony prudery and keep the line moving .

Patriot| 11.20.10 @ 12:36AM

The porno-scanners don't detect buttbombs, moron.
Next TSA stop is an anal exam--you up for that, too?

No wonder our country is dying with gutless Americans like you taking up space. God help us.

Dana White| 11.18.10 @ 5:04PM

The nude body scanners and enhanced pat downs have a slight problem with the 4th prohibition of unreasonable searches. But then so did the Army's exclusion order against Japanese citizens during WW2 have a slight problem with the 14th amendment. I guess the author agrees with the Koramatsu decision. After all you can do any thing if people are scared.

Mark In Irvine| 11.18.10 @ 5:15PM

The 4th amendment prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures, not "all searches". What is reasonable depends on the circumstances: the intrusiveness of the search; the pain or harm experienced by the person being searched; the purpose sought to be achieved by the search; the potential harm that can be avoided by the search. If the scanners can detect hidden explosive devices, their use seems to me to be reasonable, given the balancing of the factors I mention.

Thom| 11.18.10 @ 5:38PM

Mark, by your reasoning this technology and methods should be installed in every public or taxpayer supported school building, churches, shopping malls, bus and train stations or anywhere the governments deems there might be a threat to kill masses of people (all the before mentioned are ideal targets for such things) thus just where would there ever be an unreasonable search using your logic? How many times a day are you willing to be radiated before you have concerns about the accumulated doses? The scope of government interest in such matters is literally bounded only by the money they can spend to meet the needs of the above mentioned mass killing targets which are several orders of magnitude larger than just the airports the current technology is targeted for. There is nothing at all making airports the only interest of government power or terrorist interest. Contrary to your beliefs this method will not keep bombs off the planes.

CalMark| 11.18.10 @ 5:43PM

Not so long ago smug lefties like you were having meltdowns because Bush was monitoring known terrorists' bank accounts and cell phone calls. "What if they start doing this to everyone?" you sobbed. Well, it never happened.

But the TSA stuff has--to everyone. But since it's under the Dear Leader you voted for, you're OK with it. We now treat everybody like a criminal, except the outlaws.

P.S. That doesn't pass the 4th Amendment test. Go take a 10th Grade civics class. Provided your ilk still allows them somewhere.

Mark In Irvine| 11.19.10 @ 10:55AM

For the record - I don't have a problem with profiling and air travel.

Patriot| 11.20.10 @ 12:37AM

No, you just have a problem with being a man. You are useless.

BackToBasics| 11.18.10 @ 5:20PM

Mr. Tyrell,
You totally missed the fact that this system was implemented in force only AFTER the November 2 elections.

Doesn't this also raise alarms for you? You've brushed aside the other concerns but this alone should raise a big question mark.

You have surprised many of us here on this one!

duck| 11.18.10 @ 6:40PM

Nice try but your way off base.... besides, the Repubs that were just voted in cannot say or do anything until next year. This is more likely a Dem monstrosity that will be happily pushed onto the Repubs....

http://www.elliott.org/blog/ts.....ng-oct-31/

TSA: Enhanced pat-downs coming nationwide Oct. 31?

October 13, 2010

BackToBasics| 11.18.10 @ 9:54PM

You didn't understand my post at all. I was not blaming it on the newly elected Republicans who do not take office until January.

As I mentiuoned in my post, I sued the phrase "in force." Yes, there was some limited screenings and pat downs as test runs but it was not until AFTER the elections that it was "IN FORCE."

I assumed that those on this post would understand that I was referring to how Oabm and crew waited until AFTER the elections to fully begin implementation of such a disgusting policy.

ALL blame for this goes to Democrats. Quack.

duck| 11.19.10 @ 1:42AM

Sorry....
We then agree with each other....

BackToBasics| 11.19.10 @ 5:57PM

Appreciate it. Glad we agree.

GreyLioin| 11.18.10 @ 5:44PM

Mr. R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.,
You are so full of crap on this that I wonder about your conservatism. In fact I wonder about your sexual preference. You can't possibly mean what you say. If you do take your mag and have it felt up by the TSA.

prestonsbrooks| 11.18.10 @ 6:42PM

Plain common sense tells you this is wrong. The Bill of Rights rules. When people have to strip or be sexually violated just to catch a flight, we have reached insanity. Profile: hurt feelings are better than a downed aircraft.

WAKE UP| 11.18.10 @ 6:52PM

I wonder if Obama will get patted down when he flies back in :)

Etiquette Man| 11.18.10 @ 6:53PM

Dear R.E.T.,

Congrats! The Soros-paid troll stooges are applauding...

...and the Patriots are appalled!

A genuine tour de force!!!

Don't worry; your ACLU card is in the mail...

Love and Rockets,

A Former Admirer

Dick Hertz| 11.18.10 @ 6:57PM

i'm a little shocked at your (tyrrell's) position on this. why in the world would you trust tsa to do a good job at this?

it MIGHT be a different conversation if the gov't was successful at everything it attempted. but the reality is the opposite. the gov't fails at everything it does. including airport security.

if you're so willing to give up your right at the airport, why stop there? a bomb on a bus or train, or in a stadium, or in a crowded store or nightclub, or...any number of places could do substantial damage. are you willing to give up all your rights so the incompetent gov't can take care of you everywhere?

this is the worst article i have ever read from you.

Susie| 11.18.10 @ 7:23PM

Okay, let me get this straight: It's illegal to profile, but it's perfectly legal to put your hands on my boobs and crotch or go through a scanner and be able to see if it's my time of the month or if my husband's circumcised? Alrighty then.

Peterp| 11.18.10 @ 7:30PM

I am highly disturbed by Tyrell's position and it's disregard for human rights and blatant utilitarianism. Life is risk and there is no perfect safety. We do not jail everyone because some might murder. We do not have 1 mph speed limits because it's safer. Stepping over this line of intensely personal invasion in order to satisfy the lust for the unattainable, perfect safety, is completely unacceptable. Freedom and rights have a cost, and risk is that cost.

When I see toddlers being subjected to touches that would land anyone else in jail, women sobbing after their treatment, the rest of us exhorted to accept these dehumanizing treatments in leiu of profiling and other measures which do not treat innocent Americans as likely to be terrorists as radical Muslims, then read 'conservatives' like Tyrell defending these abominations and predations upon the rights of free people, I see exactly what sort of people must be swept from power for holding these kinds of ideals...placing safety above the rights of the average person, man woman or child. Disgusting.

Lou Filliger| 11.18.10 @ 8:25PM

"Cowards die many times before their death
The valiant never taste of death but once..."

Put me down in the column of people who'd rather live free and die young. Read "The Short, Happy Life of Francis Macomber" by Hemingway for more details.

Lou Filliger| 11.18.10 @ 8:26PM

And to the terrorists of the world I say,

"I fart on your grave!!"

M Harris| 11.18.10 @ 8:35PM

Mr. Tyrrell... Your infatuation with Ms. Palin is so adorable. I wonder if you have ever met her. I would love to be a fly on the wall at this encounter. I love seeing a grown man quivering with excitement over his school boy crush. Sigh... Happy Thanksgiving!

Doug| 11.18.10 @ 8:54PM

We now know that Mr. Tyrrell does not mind being groped, particularly if it's by some airport hottie. The question is, would Mr. Tyrrell be so flippant if it were his 15 year-old daughter about to undergo the same groping?

Larry in Iowa| 11.18.10 @ 9:13PM

By the same token, drunk driving kills more people than terrorists. Perhaps check points every few miles to ensure drivers are sober and everyone is wearing their seat belts are in order.

While we're at it we can require everyone to install GPS's that constantly transmit their vehicles location to a central government computer for tax (and surveillance) purposes. Hey, taxes are a public good right? And what's a little privacy if it gets in the way of a public good.

God forbid we should "profile" terrorists if the alternative is to treat every citizen like a criminal and acclimate them to being demeaned by government agents.

Isn't there an old quote about surrendering your liberty to gain security?

Ed| 11.18.10 @ 9:24PM

Such a departure from your usual keen insight, Mr Tyrrell. At first I thought this must be sarcasm, then I kept waiting for the punchline.
This is so bizarre I don't even know where to begin.

Treating every passenger as though they were a potential terrorist is absurd an a waste of resources.
TSA agents having a lengthy discussion over whether a snow-globe should be allowed on board.

TSA agents groping blond-haired 3 year olds.

Little old lady's being treated like they were middle-eastern men between the ages of 20 and 40.

Women having their breasts exposed in public, then laughed at by the TSA.

None of the people who have been granted this authority have had so much as a background check. From my own experiences with the TSA, I'm guessing the only job qualification is that you have to have a pulse.

Lay of the booze, Tyrrell.

Frank Mendez| 11.18.10 @ 9:43PM

1. Some Spectator staff roll on the floor, their sides aching.
2. Someone lost a bet.
3. R. Emmett smooches an evening cocktail, professionally satiated with duty well done.

REB| 11.18.10 @ 9:53PM

Tyyrell...you cant be serious? What are you smoking?

George S| 11.18.10 @ 10:45PM

Boy, you would have been a laugh riot at Independence Hall back on that July morning...

Terrorists are not deterred by the TSA's procedures. No... I would say it lifts their morale. It encourages ways to beat the system so as to ratchet the 'security' noose tighter around our necks until we are forced to be handcuffed and shackled during the flight (think of the peace of mind then!).

The way to stop terrorists is to pick them out of a crowd by profiling. Period. But we are too afraid to offend.

By the way... do you still go to crowded arenas, shopping malls or theaters? Those people are the same ones that stand on the airport security line with you. Yet they do not get groped or scanned prior to entering those venues. Maybe we should reconsider that. That's next, dude. Bet on it.

Only a coward would give up his dignity or his freedom in exchange for safety. What you are seeing here is the revolt of the un-cowards. Don't worry, you and others like you will benefit from their sacrifices. Again.

THR| 11.18.10 @ 11:01PM

ET, I think most people agree with you in general, and many of us would agree more if they would layer this security on top of actually looking for muslim extremists. Running an 81 yar old white protestant grandmother through all this is a digrace. We need to politely profile folks who fir the GD profile.

laura | 11.18.10 @ 11:04PM

"he referred to his genitalia as junk." "well speak for yourself Mr. Tyner. ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS!!!AmSpec and Tyrell are the absolute beginning of giving a voice to conservativism. I always respect what Tyrell says.

Sam| 11.20.10 @ 12:41AM

Your post is so incoherent I can't understand it.

Ted| 11.18.10 @ 11:57PM

Add Jed Babbin to the list of troublemakers:
http://spectator.org/archives/.....-stay-home

driveserve| 11.19.10 @ 12:51AM

Indeed, “we are at war”. To be more precise, “we are at war” with the Muslim world. It is the Muslim that should be first and foremost scrutinized, not 8-year old children, Swedish grandmothers, or otherwise non-olive skinned persons. Every swarthy young man (such as myself) should take a double-heaping of screening be that of the intense x-ray or the hands-on groping. In other words, racial profiling. I know that may leave you out in the cold vis-à-vis a nice rub down from Security Joan (apologies to Donald Fagen) but that’s small potatoes compared to the daily humiliation millions non-Muslims must suffer in the name of political correctness in our nation’s airports. But Americans are a fair minded people: Muslim women should also be screened in the same manner (especially those wearing the uber-sexy hijab) as the terrorists are apparently equal opportunity employers. And when a large gathering of Imams and Muslims gather together at the gate of their departure, begin praying loudly and openly praising the 9/11 terrorists in order to raise the hackles of their fellow travelers, they should be arrested and charged with making terrorist threats the same as anyone would be for cracking “bomb” jokes in an airport, CAIR be damned.

We need to target our enemies, not ourselves.

Wayne | 11.19.10 @ 12:54AM

I have never felt unsafe flying. Now I am told I must accept being groped to feel safe. Sorry I am not buying it. What do we do when the terrorist bomb the line waiting to go through security? At some point the correct action is to profile suspects and go after them rather than waste the time of the 99.995 percent of the people who are not the problem.

Kathi| 11.19.10 @ 1:40AM

I guess I'd take Mr. Tyrell's comments a little more seriously if they were consistent.

First he says he doesn't mind an airport pat-down, especially if it's done by "a cute little number", then he claims that calling a pat-down "groping" means Mr. Donnelly's mind is in the gutter. Make up your mind, Mr. Tyrell. If you want to make sexist references about pat-downs, don't whine about someone else calling them groping.

But here's the clincher. Mr. Tyrell says that violating our rights is the price of air travel in the age of terrorism, then follows it up by saying ". . . no one is forcing us to use airplanes when we travel." Remember that quote from Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Well, I say, if you're too scared to fly because of the threat of terrorism, then drive. After all, no is forcing YOU to get on a plane, are they?

James Washburne| 11.19.10 @ 4:49AM

We need to be especially careful screening those three year old girls to make sure they don't sneak a TeddyBear bomb on board.

the friendly grizzly| 11.19.10 @ 5:23AM

>r Tyrell: you come across as either a sniveling little hand-wringer best suited to playing Chicken Little in a school play; or a "Good German", ready to answer the shout of "papieren! schnell!" from someone because they have a uniform on.

This is not what America is about. We don't do that.

As for the "oh, you get even more radiation in flight!" nonsense: I believe that about as much as the government lie of "there is no way to store or print the X-rays". Besides, radiation damage is cumulative.

As one who is diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic lymphoma, I will accept the radiation of a flight because it is part of getting there. I will not accept being blasted with radiation by personnel who in most cases are incapable of running the fry machine at Burger King.

Be the "good German" all you want. I for one will remain an American.

Yosemeti Sam| 11.19.10 @ 10:54AM

This is a welcome THIRD RAIL privacy issue debate.

Dave| 11.19.10 @ 11:50AM

you say..

"especially if the pater-downer is a cute little number on the order of, say, Sarah Palin."

then....

"Groping" is apparently what Donnelly calls a "pat-down." Get your mind out of the gutter, George. "

Who's mind is the gutter?

Phuleaase.!!!!.I hope you didn't get paid to write this because that would surely be a travesty and you should never be allowed to write anything again!

dragon6actual| 11.19.10 @ 12:12PM

"We are at war with savages who sneak explosives onto airplanes and turn them into bombs. Such brutes have no sense of discrimination between a war zone and a civilian zone. "

Indeed we are at war, and we must enact measures which make sense - profiling and questioning those most likely to carry bombs or weapons on commercial aircraft. The last time I looked, 4 year old boys and 80 year old grandmothers weren't the threat. It's time the TSA pulled its head out of its ASS.

Diane Schrader| 11.19.10 @ 1:04PM

I respect you greatly Mr. Tyrrell, but you have your head firmly entrenched somewhere on this one -- somewhere no light penetrates.

One can almost not even begin to count how many alarms should be going off on this issue, and you are sleeping through all of them! Well, I guess I can begin to count the alarms, actually:

http://www.newsrealblog.com/20.....-security/

David Ippolito| 11.19.10 @ 2:49PM

AGREED!! He seems to also have stopped thinking.. just like our TSA agents

David Ippolito| 11.19.10 @ 2:46PM

Dude.. you are missing the larger point... its because of the tyranny of political correctness that we find ourselves paying TSA to pat down 4yr olds and 90 year old woman in wheel chairs.

Instead of using strategic profiling and our wits, we've substituted dumb routines that leave no room for common sense - only to serve the PC Gods... its sickening. Here is an idea... ask Israel how they've managed to protect their fliers???

chris haynes| 11.19.10 @ 2:51PM

Yes, we are at war. That's is the reason for groping. Another little example of what war does.

So why are we at war?

To bring our freedom and values to the moslems? Like abortion. History's greatest holocaust. Enshrined in our law and constitution. With the likes of Lieberman and Feinstein in the role of holocaust enablers.

For oil?
when we have enough in Wyoming for 500 years?

To justify a big military?

REB| 11.24.10 @ 12:30AM

Awww come on...abortion is evil but its not an American value! Raping little boys and misusing women is a muslim value,how in hell is that our fault??

Joe| 11.19.10 @ 4:55PM

Mr. Tyrrell, I don't know whether you have children...mine are grown.

I can tell you that had one of my daughters been searched that way when she was anywhere from preschooler through high school, I would have reacted with great fervor.

Pat my wife down, or look at her naked in some "sterile" X-Ray machine in a public place and you'd get a similar reaction, no matter how "professional" you were.

If you would allow your daughter to submit to that kind of "pat-down," I think very little of you as a man, a father, a husband and/or a human being.

BTW: I did not first hear of this on Drudge...you are absolutely wrong...period.

Patriot| 11.20.10 @ 12:44AM

Joe, thank God there are still some real American men left!

Margaret| 11.20.10 @ 8:19AM

Interesting that the writer should mention Israel in the end, when it should've been in the beginning. What terrorist doesn't want to blow up an Israeli plane? If the scanners worked, the Israelis would be using them.

steve| 11.20.10 @ 9:30AM

I blame Drudge, too. Oh, I want to blame him because he's a useless star of the blogosphere, but the truth is that he's part of the cheerleading apologists corps of right wing nut jobs who've bamboozled too many Americans into believing that if it's on the internet, it's news. There is news and there are facts. He's unconcerned with such distinctions. In fact, he's part of the problem, one of the fools who supported all of the craziest ideas out of Washington for the last dozen years. Sure he calls himself a conservative, but he's just a media whore, and he's encouraging the intellectual demise of America by lending support to patently wrong-headed policies like invading Iraq and supporting the worst of Israel's policies. After all, those are the reasons we have all these curtailments to our rights here in America. George W. Bush claimed, "They hate us because we love freedom." Seems to me that Drudge, Bush and the whole neo-con cabal are the ones hating our freedom. Unless I'm mistaken, they're the ones who removed them.

Mitchman| 11.20.10 @ 9:40AM

This is without question a column that should be in the New York Times much more so than in AmSpec. The violation of personal privacy and basic freedoms involved in the searches is offensive to every human being innocently trying to board an airplane. Perhaps Mr. Tyrrell has been too spoiled being a member of the private jet set to have any empathy for the ridiculousness of the Too Stupid for Arby's searches. This is not a column written by anyone interested in personal freedom.

solo| 11.20.10 @ 10:02AM

Errr....Steve...

Drudge doesn't set policy. He had nothing to do with Iraq or the Bush Administration, either.

He just links to other news stories. Granted...they are usually stories and events which the communists currently in control of the democrat party...and their lickspittles in the MSM would rather you not see.
Maybe that's what's got you so exercised.

This is no different than what the New York Times does every day. The networks simply regurgitate what the Times reports, and there you have it: a perfectly homogenous world view delivered to you with a leftist slant attached.

When Drudge starts forging documents in order to get his point of view across, then you have reason to complain.

Until then....get a clue!

e cowan| 11.20.10 @ 2:02PM

Pat Me, Pat Me
This is this a joke and you're not really a perv who gets his jollies from thinking about other people's private parts being groped........ right?

e cowan| 11.20.10 @ 2:23PM

'This is this a joke ' is a typo ...
Should be "This is a joke and you're not ......" etc.
Just because I got a courtesy "D" in typing, I still blame this keyboard for adding letters and even whole words, which I did NOT intend.

not buying it| 11.22.10 @ 8:30AM

Note well the author's obvious omission of federal abuse of powers regarding bio-scan record collection per US citizen. Sure, trust authoritarians like Janet Napolitano, but not at our irretrievable expense. At what point will the author draw the line? No, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. Just blame Drudge for the TSA's abuses. Go the next step and say that 9/11 is Drudge's fault.

Publius| 11.22.10 @ 9:38PM

"Terror poses an enormous threat to the free society. "

Indeed, it has already eviscerated the Fourth Amendment.

duck| 11.23.10 @ 1:25PM

A statement from the TSO :

"Our phones are ringing off the hook with TSOs calling in about unpleasantries between the flying public and them. The public has to understand these TSOs didn't make the policies, they're working people trying to do it the best they can."

snip===============================

This is the same excuse many Nazis gave at the end of WWII. We were just a tool to be used.

Why would anybody want to be 'that' tool in the first place. What is the mentality that allows people to believe everyone from their own country is a probable enemy. There has to be a psychological vacancy working on these types of people.

Sometime ago, I read the memoirs of a Nazi Commander. He described how easy it was to indoctrinate individuals when they were put in positions of authority to demean their own people. He went on to state that this ease of manipulation was used to initiate the brownshirts, students, and other specialized groups against their neighbors. He was amazed when children were so easily enticed to turn in their own parents.

I think the TSO proves that many of these gullible types exist in America.

Tyrant Killer| 11.23.10 @ 2:54PM

You are letting the Terrorists win!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

duck| 11.25.10 @ 1:39PM

Now, based on the left's philosophy, everyone is equal...we are all possible terrorists....

weddingdress| 7.15.11 @ 5:19AM

This is no different than what the New York Times does every day. The networks simply regurgitate what the Times reports, and there you have it: a perfectly homogenous world view delivered to you with a leftist slant attached.