New TSA security measures are off-balance: An editorial

John Pistole, head of the Transportation Security Administration, is defending more intrusive pat-downs and the use of full-body scanners that have triggered some push-back from the flying public.

TSA Body ScannersWith the help of Transportation Security Officer Nardja Segui, Randell Lundsgaard of the Transportation Security Administration demonstrates a full body scanner at Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport last month.

He argues that the steps are necessary following the Christmas Day 2009 arrest of Umar Abdulmutallab, a Detroit-bound passenger who had explosives in his underwear.

The so-called underwear bomber was not spotted by metal detectors, and the incident accelerated the agency's efforts to increase security, Mr. Pistole told the Senate Commerce Committee. That includes the installation of 1,000 full-body scanners, which provide detailed images under passengers' clothing, by 2011.

But if the arrest of Umar Abdulmutallab was the trigger, it's hard to understand why the agency didn't put more aggressive pat-down procedures in place immediately.

The TSA didn't announce the change in pat-downs until last month. Now, same-sex screeners touch passengers on the breasts and genitals, using an open palm and sliding motion instead of the lighter touch that they used previously.

Passengers are only subjected to pat-downs if they refuse the full-body scanner or if other security devices, including metal detectors, find something suspicious. Most passengers won't experience this type of search, Mr. Pistole said.

But Sen. George LeMieux said he thinks the pat-downs go too far. "I wouldn't want my wife to be touched in a way that these folks are being touched,'' he said. "I wouldn't want to be touched that way, and I think that we have to be focused on safety, but there's a balance.''

He's right. The underwear bomber case doesn't justify intrusive pat-downs; the would-be bomber got on his flight without being subjected to a pat-down or other extra screening. It doesn't make sense for the TSA to spend time and energy on the small number of passengers who refuse to submit to full-body scanning, while many others are getting on planes after going through nothing more than a metal detector.

The TSA policy is making it as unpleasant as possible for passengers to opt out of the full-body scan, but that seems unnecessary. After all, a recent CBS News poll showed that 81 percent of Americans favor full-body screening.

Passengers eager to make their flights and connections are far more likely to take the quickest route through security -- a scanner -- even without the threat of being groped by a TSA employee.

Moreover, there are better ways to determine if a passenger poses a risk that can't be found by a metal detector, including dogs trained to sniff explosives.

The agency should reconsider a pat-down procedure that seems more like an effort to pressure passengers than keep them safe.