home

Should Congress Be Exempt From Passenger Screening?

By TChris, Section War on Terror
Posted on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 12:02:14 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

Responding to demands for faster lines at airport terminals, TSA officials are considering changes in airline passenger screening rules. Some of the changes under consideration make sense: prohibiting nail files in carry-on luggage has always been a bit extreme, although the ban on ice picks should probably stay. One welcome proposal would allow passengers to keep their shoes on unless they set off a metal detector, while another seeks to reduce patdowns by giving screeners the discretion to keep their hands off passengers who are wearing tight-fitting clothes.

More troubling is the list of individuals who would be exempt from screening requirements:

... federal judges, members of Congress, Cabinet members, state governors, high-ranking military officers and those with high-level security clearances.

These are exactly the people who should know what it feels like to experience an invasion of privacy (however slight) at the hands of a government employee. Exempting public officials from the same travel hassles that the rest of us endure insulates them from the real world in an unhealthy way.

< Say Hello | Iraq Tribunal Rebuffs Saddam's Family Over Lawyer Choice >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Should Congress Be Exempt From Passenger Screening? | 9 comments (9 topical)
    Re: Should Congress Be Exempt From Passenger Scree (none / 0) (#1)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:20 PM EST
    "Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Congressman Don Young (R-AK) and Congressman John Lewis (D-GA) were recently delayed or prevented from boarding their planes because their names reportedly appeared on the No-Fly list." ACLU. Congressman John Dingle (D-MI) was made to strip because his artificial hip replacement set off an airport alarm. India's former defense minister George Fernandes was "strip-searched" in June 2003 at Washington's Dulles Airport and Armitage made a public apology. But, no one up at the top seems to do anything about eliminating the idiotic super double top secret 'no fly list'. After Kennedy did got stopped, unlike ordinary folk, he was able to to call Tom Ridge. It took five weeks for him to get off the list. Ironically he is one of the biggest advocate of privacy rights but is not leading any effort to end the practice. He says: “If they have that kind of difficulty with a member of Congress, how in the world are average Americans, who are getting caught up in this thing, how are they going to be treated fairly and not have their rights abused?” Well why don't you do something about it Ted? Here is an average guy's kafkaesque story.

    Re: Should Congress Be Exempt From Passenger Scree (none / 0) (#2)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:21 PM EST
    i'm inclined to feel, for their own sake, that public officials should have personal, first hand knowledge of what "the little people" put up with. they need to re-connect with the reality that the rest of us, (you know, their constituents) deal with.

    Re: Should Congress Be Exempt From Passenger Scree (none / 0) (#3)
    by jarober on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:21 PM EST
    It's called threat profiling. Next, maybe they can start not screening little old ladies and small children....

    Re: Should Congress Be Exempt From Passenger Scree (none / 0) (#4)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:21 PM EST
    "These are exactly the people who should know what it feels like to experience an invasion of privacy (however slight) at the hands of a government employee." Not to mention that exempting such a relatively tiny portion of the flying public would very likely not make any lines any faster, which is the whole reason they are considering exempting folks in the first place...

    Re: Should Congress Be Exempt From Passenger Scree (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:21 PM EST
    I say check 'em twice, and don't forget the rubber glove treatment!

    Re: Should Congress Be Exempt From Passenger Scree (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:21 PM EST
    This is absurd. Not only should elected officials traveling on commercial carriers be required to surrender their civil liberites along with the rest of us, who the hell can say that a congressperson is not a threat to public safety? In San Francisco, Supervisor Harvey Milk was assasinated in 1978 by another (former) elected supervisor, Dan White. Winning an election does not confer any special "now safe for air travel" staus. This proposal is not only absurd, it is bull**it.

    Re: Should Congress Be Exempt From Passenger Scree (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:22 PM EST
    Look, it's reasonable to believe that high-level elected officials (not a "supervisor") are not threats to airlines. At the same time, I absolutely agree they should not be exempt just for the reason that they should share our experience and frustration with the ridiculous changes to TSA policy nearly none of which would have prevented 9/11 yet which ALL are a result of it. Agreed regarding Kennedy as well, but I can't say I'm surprised. He did vote for the unPATRIOT ACT :)

    Re: Should Congress Be Exempt From Passenger Scree (none / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:22 PM EST
    comic relief although not too funny. Infants are on the no fly list via huffpo

    Re: Should Congress Be Exempt From Passenger Scree (none / 0) (#9)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:23 PM EST
    A government of the people, by the people, for the people. Congressmen have already tried to sneak guns aboard aircraft. If anyone thinks judges and congresscritters are above the law, perhaps you should move to regency, not a democracy.

    Should Congress Be Exempt From Passenger Screening? | 9 comments (9 topical)