Begin debating body scanners, but don’t shut down air travel

It’s not as if no one knew that full body scanners were coming to an airport near you. Congress began debating the scanners in 2007 and authorized widespread deployment after the “underwear bomber” was foiled in his attempt last Christmas to blow up a plane over Detroit.

It is becoming typically American for the government to react to an act of terrorism — successful or not — by authorizing the use of new technology or new security procedures. And it is becoming equally American to ignore what we’ve been told the government — in this case the Transportation Security Administration — is going to do until they start doing it. Then the howling begins.

The TSA began installing 450 scanners in 50 U.S. airports months ago. There will be another 500 next year.

No new questions are being raised about the privacy and health concerns associated with advanced imaging technology that weren’t raised before. It’s just that, well, now the machines are here. That, and a couple of high profile incidents are fueling opposition as we approach the travel rush of Thanksgiving.

First there was a commuter airline pilot who refused to submit to the scan or to a body pat down by the TSA. He’s been grounded. Then there was a libertarian radio host from New England who described being terribly mistreated by TSA workers when she refused a scan or pat down at a Florida airport. Her account, when compared to TSA videotapes was, to be charitable, exaggerated. And there was the guy who refused to go through a scanner in San Diego and then warned a TSA employee not to touch his “junk” or he would to have the TSA guy arrested. Oh, and he just happened to leave his cell phone on to record this encounter.

The time for debate about the efficacy and the intrusiveness of these machines was a year ago. But we have become a reactive rather than proactive society in more ways than can be listed here. Let’s pursue an overdue debate, if that’s the will of the people.

Limited options

But in the meantime, the machines are in place. Travelers have two options: submit to the scan and experience the uncomfortable feeling of being digitally disrobed, or opt out and submit to a pat down.

TSA administrator John Pistole acknowledged Wednesday that the opt-out pat downs are more invasive than travelers have been accustomed to, but said they are a necessary alternative to the scans. If Congress wants to hold hearings and pass legislation defining what it thinks is an appropriate level of invasiveness, it is free to do so.

But in the meantime, the TSA cannot allow a dissident element, whether it be 5 percent, 10 percent or 20 percent of the traveling public, to bring airline travel to a halt. Some of the most fervent opponents want to do just that with an “opt-out day” on Thanksgiving Eve. If enough people opt out, they say, they will bring the system to a standstill (on one of the busiest days of the year) .

Allowed to, they might succeed — or they might manage to distract TSA workers to the extent that a terrorist takes advantage of the situation and gets on board a plane with a weapon or a dangerous substance. Neither of those things can be allowed to happen.

TSA workers should be instructed to be polite, firm and efficient. If someone opts out of the scanner, direct him or her to a male or female TSA agent for a pat down. Passengers who balk should get one warning that they are jeopardy of being denied boarding privileges. If they persist, have them escorted from the airport.

They won’t like it, but the other passengers who recognize that holiday travel is harrowing enough without people purposely bogging down security will appreciate being able to make their flights.

Two administrations and six Congresses have taken a number of actions in the wake of 9/11, out of fear and confusion and in an effort to reassure the American people. No doubt some of what has been done is an overreaction.

Taking a look back is not a bad idea, but it must be done with care and with dispassion. If airport body scanners and pat downs are what it takes to start the debate on how much freedom we are willing to cede in the name of security, so be it.