Testing The Pat Down

I made a prediction a couple of days after 9/11.

Amidst all the calls for increased security and the public opinion polls that said Americans were ready for more aggressive protocols to keep us safe from another terrorist attack, I said, "Wait a few years. That tune will change."

It certainly has.

From "Don't touch my junk!" t-shirts to the planned "Opt Out Day" Wednesday, the traveling public has expressed the opinion that full-body scanners and pat downs really aren't necessary if they result in inconvenience, embarrassment and the potential for health risks from added x-rays.

Just out of curiosity, and because Kansas City uses private security screeners (as Congressman Joe Mica of Florida wants to see replace TSA at all the nation's busiest airports), I tested out a pat down at Kansas City International Airport yesterday on my way home to Chicago. KCI has full-body scanners but they are only used by the airport's two busiest airlines, Southwest and Delta. I was flying United.

I left a flashlight and a pen in my pockets as I went through the metal detectors. After I "beeped" three times, I was asked to step aside. I assumed the position: standing, hands out to the sides forming a "T." As the security agent frisked me, he explained he was checking my loose clothing for any metal objects I might have forgotten to put in the bin.

The pat-down was fast, semi-professional and didn't appear to draw attention from my fellow passengers. I say semi-professional for two reasons. The agent didn't touch my rear pockets and he wasn't aggressive enough in places where even embarrassed rookie cops in training are aggressive. Had I been wearing a shoulder, belt or ankle holstered weapon, he would have found it. If I'd had a a gun hidden in the area of my groin or a knife in my back pocket, I would have boarded the plane armed.

I watched for about a half hour as about a dozen other passengers were patted down. None voiced an objection. None received more thorough treatment than I. Some were patted only above the waist.

The conclusions I draw from my individual experience are that not all passengers are treated the same way and "pat downs" are not effective if done half-heartedly. I'm sure some security officers do a better job than others. Some do far worse.

Congress is not willing to mandate, nor is the traveling public willing to accept, the cost or inconvenience of truly aggressive security measures carried out by trained anti-terror professionals. The politicians, and the people, have fallen back to believing that, "It won't happen here...again." We all want to get swiftly to our destinations...not wait hours in line. We aren't even willing to trade momentary indignity for better safety.

As a result, Congress has provided unarmed, poorly paid security screeners to do an unpleasant job in the best way they can. The better they do it, the slower the line moves and the more complaints they receive.

As a result, we get TSA and private contractors who, in some highly publicized cases, frisk babies, the elderly, and those in wheelchairs. Colostomy bags break open. Genitals get touched, sometimes harshly. Inappropriate comments are made at indelicate times.

Is there a more efficient way? Not in a country as big, or as opinionated, as ours.

Will the procedures now in place prevent another tragedy? They have so far.

Will there be more complaints, even more lawsuits? Count on it.

Do people feel safer?

Answer that one for yourself.