TSA, Terrorism, and Sen. Rand Paul

Senator Rand Paul, (R) Ken., was recently detained at the airport by TSA agents, delaying his trip by an hour and a half and causing him to miss his flight.  Because of this, Sen. Paul, son of Presidential candidate and Republican Senator from Texas Ron Paul, has been hitting the media outlets to talk about dignity in travel and how, for frequent travelers, such "invasive" search procedures as full body patdowns and physical inspections of clothing items, seem almost draconian (my word, not his).

As a frequent traveler, and one frequently stopped by TSA agents, I can understand Sen. Paul's frustration.  I don't fly nearly half as often as he does, but I go through Heathrow and Ohare regularly.  However, I fully and adamantly disagree with Sen. Paul's solution.

In short, Sen. Paul wants "selective risk assessment" for "international travelers" and "people with ties to terrorist organizations".  There is another term for what the Senator is suggesting: profiling.

There are a lot of connotation justly associated with profiling, and Sen. Paul was smart not to use that term.  It suggests an institutionalized form of racism where TSA agents could just search someone not because they have "terrorist associations" (though, that term was loosely bandied about in the wake of Katrina to disastrous ends; read the book Zeitoun by Dave Eggers for more on that), but because they seem terrorist.  The government has come under some fire for how loosely they apply that term, and how Americans, innocent American citizens, have been held without a trial simply because someone thought that another person might have associations to terrorists.

The question, then, is how does a TSA agent, or the Department of Homeland Security, identify terrorist suspects?  How do they separate what Sen. Paul calls "normal Americans" from those that should be searched?  Interestingly, Sen. Paul has come out against the previous and current administration's unilateral power to profile and detain citizens.  In the above video, Sen. Paul questions the legality of using such factors as physical features or purchase histories as determinations.  So, again, how are these determinations made?

The problem with saying that only some people should get searched is that it creates a distinction between privileged people and those whose privileges have been suspended for some reason.  Of course, TSA full-body searches are not nearly as undignified as sitting in the back of a bus  or separate bathrooms, but there is a parallel that can be drawn.  After all, as Sen. Paul has said himself, these searches are undignified.  His suggestion for selective searches is a suggestion only to apply these indignities to certain people.

That is oppression, and oppression is always ugly.  Be it the oppression of same-sex couple who are denied marriage, the oppression of the poor by tax laws that favor the wealthy, or oppression of citizens who happen to meet whatever qualifications raise the suspicion of terrorism: you cannot deny one section of the population rights while allowing those same rights to another.

Sen. Rand Paul might benefit from remembering what every grade school teacher has told every student who has brought candy to class: you either bring enough for everyone, or no one gets any.  If the TSA decides that searches are necessary to prevent further terrorist attacks, then everyone should be searched (or, as it is done now, randomly from the entire populace).

He is right, though, that there are hundreds of stories of mistreatment at the hands of TSA agents.  Strange searches on the elderly and babies, people in wheel chairs, the terminally ill, and so on.  It would seem that his outrage and claims of indignity are justly leveled at the TSA.  What Sen. Paul fails to realize, though, is that the terrorist are not playing by any set rules.  For every story about a random search of a pregnant woman at an airport, there is a story about how bombs were strapped to pregnant women.  For every child's toy torn to pieces looking for bombs, their are bombs sewn into children's toys.  If a terrorist wants to get at America and America has a policy of not searching the elderly, it is likely the next attack is likely to come by way of an elderly American.  If the US stops searching citizens, then the terrorists will infiltrate American citizens.  In short, if the TSA decides not to search a certain segment of society, it stands to reason that would be the access point which the terrorists would use to gain entry to airplanes.

I have no problem with the searches (though the TSA agents could be nicer about it; no need to be surly and invasive), and I have been stopped and searched on about half of the flights I take.  It comes with flying alone on international flights, usually on one-way tickets.  I was pulled out on my Chicago to Seattle flight for a random full-body pat down.  My luggage is often opened and rifled through.  And honestly, I am fine with that.  For one, I don't have anything to hide.  Secondly, if there is a terrorist in line somewhere, and there are random searches, it might act as a deterrent - certainly more so than no randomized searches.

Of course, if Sen. Paul doesn't like being searched, he doesn't have to fly.  He could drive (or be driven) from one destination to the next; or if taking public transport is important, there are trains and buses available from most major cities (in fact, maybe the good Senator could throw his weight behind high-speed train travel...I have some ideas for that).  Flying is not a right, but a privilege - one afforded to Americans who can afford the price of the ticket.  These privileges come with a cost beyond the sticker price, and with air travel, that hidden fee is a possible search.

Finally, and maybe what I find most ironic, is that the small-government advocate is essentially saying that we need more government regulations of air travel.  After all, someone (or something) would need to make the determinations about who gets onto the frequent flyer program, which travelers should raise flags, and so on.  The more specialized the criteria, the bigger the governing body is going to be.  And if security is given to the private sector, where each airline is responsible for security, you can expect even more delays, price increases (someone has to pay for this added security, and the corporations certainly aren't going to dig into their own pockets to pay for their customers safety; and a frequent traveler program would not be free either - the ability to get around searches would come with a price), and if history has taught us anything, worse treatment (after all, look at how well  the banking, housing and other corporations have behaved unregulated).

Of course, since Sen. Paul lands squarely in the "haves" camp, and none of this would concern him.   He would have the tax payers of Kentucky pay for any increases in flight cost, claiming that air travel is part of his job.  This is what I find most troubling about Sen. Paul's reaction to his search: it is baldly elitist.  His outrage over the search is not because of the indignity faced by the average American; it was that he, a Senator, was forced through these same indignities.  He's just a "normal" American, after all.