“Everything is objectively better than it was two years ago, particularly in the aviation environment”

The transcript from Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s interview on CNN’s “State of the Union” isn’t available yet, but here’s what we know: There was a lot of hemming and hawing — here’s a sample — and one keeper quote that could define her tenure.

“Everything is objectively better than it was two years ago, particularly in the aviation environment,” she told Candy Crowley this morning.

Excuse me?

Look, I don’t have a problem with letting Napolitano put a little spin on her accomplishments, but let’s be realistic about it. The last two years have been awful for air travelers, with new restrictions, security procedures and invasive, unconstitutional searches being performed in the name of homeland security.

The Secretary is blowing smoke.

And what’s worse is, we’re inhaling.

Covering her CNN interview, Jordan Fabian of The Hill likened her interview to a victory lap.

Napolitano’s comments suggest that the administration has weathered the storm regarding the new security, which began on the cusp of the Thanksgiving travel season.

I beg to differ with that analysis.

A survey released just today suggests just the opposite — that people are canceling their flights to avoid being scanned and patted down.

I’m also troubled by the uncritical coverage of her interview by other mainstream media outlets, such as Bloomberg News and the Associated Press — two organizations that are known for asking tough questions, or at least challenging the obvious spin when they are presented with it.

They did nothing of the sort.

The only somewhat critical moment in today’s coverage came when the National Journal put some of her quotes in context — and folks, that’s really all readers want, since pretty much everything else in journalism is automated these days.

The Journal simply reminded its readers of Napolitano’s questionable track record, which included allowing the Underwear Bomber to slip through our defenses a year ago.

The failed attack was easily the most controversial moment of Napolitano’s tenure as homeland security chief.

In the immediate aftermath of the incident, she told CNN that the nation’s aviation security system had “worked,” prompting widespread calls for her resignation.

She weathered that crisis, and is no longer seen as a likely candidate for replacement by the White House.

For now, at least.

My friends, if the federal government thinks the last two years have been a success — by any measure — it is delusional.

Air travelers have a special responsibility to stand up against this form of government incompetence. Why? Because the Department of Homeland Security is planning to take its unconstitutional searches to a mall, train station and bus stop near you.

And who knows where else?

We deserve better.

(Photo: Tatt ooed J J/Flickr Creative Commons)

  • cjr

    Napolitano needs some rubber wallpaper.

  • BucksterSF

    “We deserve better.”

    Really? Seems to me we get exactly the government we elect and deserve. Incumbents = 1, Public = 0.

  • http://www.alaskatravelgram.com Scott McMurren

    I’m not sure why travelers roll over for this irradiate-or-violate policy. These procedures would not have stopped the “underwear bomber”. Alert passengers picked up where security failed.
    And the “underwear bomber” is the excuse given for the implementation of the full-body porno scans and/or feel-me-up pat-downs. Rather, it was the successful lobbying of former TSA chief Michael Chertoff which led to the multi-million-dollar Rapiscan contract. OMG.

  • Christopher Elliott

    @BucksterSF, how true.

  • Bill

    I have never heard anything sensible come out of Janet Napolitano’s mouth.

    She should definitely be replaced and should have a different job.

    She seems to have little or no knowledge of the real world, particularly with respect to how it applies to her realm of responsiblity.
    I don’t like her at all and I look forward to the day she is replaced.

  • Carver

    @Chris

    Is is possible that your strong dislike of the TSA practices is coloring your analysis. Consider

    “I’m also troubled by the uncritical coverage of her interview by other mainstream media outlets, such as Bloomberg News and the Associated Press — two organizations that are known for asking tough questions…”

    So, the news outlets known for asking tough questions didn’t see anything of note here. Hmmm. Very Telling.

    Also the statement regarding ” Department of Homeland Security['s] unconstitutional searches” That’s just a red herring. Whenever someone doesn’t like something the feds, do it’s “unconstitution”. However, as the federal courts have not ruled these searched to be such, then really, that’s just spin.

  • frostysnowman

    Chris has a point – the media seems to have completely backed away from asking any tough or pointed questions about TSA practices to anyone in the TSA. If his dislike of the TSA colors his coverage (which I don’t think is true), what does that say about so much of the rest of the media? How come the ONLY interviews we see or read after a contriversial TSA security situation is reported on are from people who say “it made them feel safer”? That’s the reaction we read about concerning the woman in Chris’ post a couple of days ago. Why is it we don’t see quotes/interviews from people who think the TSA policies are ridiculous? Is it fear, or media spin, or both?

  • MarkieA

    @BucksterSF

    If this was a truly representative Government, I would agree with you. However, with the lies and spins told by our elected officials in order to get voted in, there’s no telling what they’re gonna do once they have the power.

  • Sommer Gentry

    Carver,

    No court has ever ruled either way on whether these deeply offensive TSA searches are Constitutional. There are at least a handful of lawsuits making their way through the courts challenging these searches on 4th amendment grounds. All prior rulings concerning administrative searches at airports required that administrative searches be minimally intrusive and effective – these searches are well known to be neither. Thus, it is far from “spin” to argue that these searches are unconstitutional – no one knows how the courts will rule and they’ve never heard a challenge to virtual strip searches nor to sexually invasive patdowns.

  • Carver

    @Sommer

    Laws are presumed constitutional until a court of competent jurisdiction rules them not constitutional. Therefore, to speak of a law as unconstitutional, is either spin or wishful thinking until such time as the court strikes it down.

    @frostythesnowman

    A third alternative is that this is much ado about nothing, much like the so called Flying Opt Out Day.

  • Nora

    I’m increasingly put off by Chris’ strident tone. I’m no fan of the TSA, and I agree that the Kabuki theater we call “airport security” needs some serious rethinking from the Administration, the Congress, or (as a last resort) the Courts.

    But really… we get it already. TSA=bad. Hard charging Consumer Advocate=good. Done. Can we move on now?

    This blog used to be FUN to read. Not so much anymore, huh?

  • William

    The responses and replies from Napolitano are not all that surprising –

    Given that she knows less about law enforcement than a rookie police officer,
    Given that she knows less about safety than a school crossing guard,
    Given that she knows less about customer service than a MacDonald’s restaurant manager,
    Given that she has gone through TSA security fewer times than my grandfather,
    Given that she is held less accountable for results by her boss than a Walmart shopping cart jockey,

    She really just does not know any better.

  • cjr

    “A third alternative is that this is much ado about nothing, much like the so called Flying Opt Out Day.”

    Carver, you seem like a reasonable guy, so I’d ask that you stop pushing the TSA spin and propaganda. National Opt Out Day was a huge success. Everybody talked about it, every news media wanted a train wreck, and TSA shut down all the porno-scanners and stopped their groping for a day to avoid the controversy (and thus further prove this is merely theater).

    And TSA’s searches are a violation of our civil rights, period. You don’t need a court decision to determine that. But then, you shouldn’t need a court; we already have this thing called the Constitution. It’s time for the various departments of the federal government to start following it.

    “Can we move on now?”

    No. TSA has not changed for the better, ergo, the pressure should not let up. Simply getting the message out there isn’t enough.

    “This blog used to be FUN to read.”

    Fun? This blog is mostly filled with horror stories as Christopher does his job as a consumer advocate.

  • jacqui

    @carver, i’m sure you’ve heard this before, but since we’re on the subject of the constitution, I wonder if our founding fathers would feel the same as you about surrendering our rights until a court says we have absolutely them. Benjamin franklin’s words suggest the opposite, “those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither.” that doesn’t sound to me like he added after that, but we should really ask the court first.

  • Bill

    Chris,
    I have to agree with Nora. I think you are losing the mainstream traveling public.
    Those who feel that the TSA’s practices violate their personal sense of privacy seem to have gravitated to this site and continually re-state their point of view.
    (and I admit I am now guilty of the same crime given this response).
    We all understand how they feel.
    I was hoping they would follow through on their earlier pledge to stop flying. I think that is a excellent course for them to take.
    To the responsible press and 95% of the real frequent flyers this is a non-issue.
    Let’s move on.

  • Carver

    @cjr

    We respectfully disagree. What you see as TSA spin, I see a media driven hype. We’ll have to agree to disagree. Personally, I am more aligned with Bill and Nora in this matter

    @Jacqui

    Benjamin’s Franklin’s words, though wise, delineate neither their metes nor bounds. Accordingly, they offers little practical insight.

    But more directly, just as a practical matters, laws must be presumed valid otherwise we descend into anarchy. That’s not to suggest that all laws are valid, its just that as a nation of laws, our starting or default position must be respect for the law.

  • Joe Farrell

    Today, TSA shot and killed three persons who disagreed with their screening methods. . . . after maiming three others.

    “Well, if it makes us safer, I’m all for it!” said Sarah Scheeple of Somewhere in Ohio . . .

  • Lisa S

    When is Napolitano going to get fired? Surely there must be someone capable of doing this job. Really, why can’t she just talk with the Isrealis and follow their lead? How hard can that be?

    The media have backed away from this and I am grateful that Chris has not. When will Americans stand up and demand their civil rights?!

  • cjr

    “What you see as TSA spin, I see a media driven hype.”

    Media drove the hype simply because they wanted chaos.

    When they didn’t get it, they turned on National Opt Out Day. Yet, National Opt Out Day is apparently to blame for the media failing not once but twice in their responsibility for proper journalism? No, I think not.

    TSA is willing to take billions of dollars and throw it aside for the sake of a little PR, a fact which they’re more than willing to allow people to gloss over. Much like they hope you’ll gloss over your civil rights being trampled over when you get in the security line.

  • Jacqui

    @ Carver
    To me, this may not be the case, your prior words suggested that you agree that any process or policies put into place is lawful until the court challenges it, I said nothing about not following the law until it is proven lawful. I simply disagree that just because they have policies of searching people makes it lawful. Personally if I didn’t like it I just wouldn’t fly – which I don’t, for several reasons, i.e. kids, and lack of funds. It should just be as simple as if you don’t want to be searched you should be able to leave. Often they are held for a period of time with threats of arrest. I just don’t see how TSA was granted either probable cause or the equivalent of it because someone didn’t like their policy or simply said “no”. They should be allowed to leave.

    If the policy of a local police station was to hold someone indefinitely without charging them, they would be doing something unlawful. That person would need an attorney to stop them from doing it, much like passengers would need one against the TSA, but that does not mean the practice was lawful until the court said it wasn’t. It’s just gray area that can be exploited.

    My main point, however, was the fact that the foundation of our system is checks and balances, we are no Utopian society free from corruption, but the fact that the TSA seems to be able to skirt that issue is a bit unsettling. In other words the TSA watches us, who watches them?

  • frostysnowman

    @ Carver
    1. My name is frostysnowman, “the” is not part of it.
    2. Opt-Out day was a success in the ways cjr mentioned.
    3. I still believe the media deliberately searches for people who agree with TSA policies when they are looking for comments about a security situation.

  • Sommer Gentry

    One thing I don’t understand is why some people, the ones who don’t value their bodies or their rights, are annoyed at the mere mention of this controversy. Fine, I get it, you are somehow not offended when stranger shove their hands down your pants. I’m glad for you that this is not a life-changing threat, but it is to me and to many other people I’ve spoken to. Stop telling me, and Chris, what we ought to keep quiet about.

    The reason the press needs to keep covering this is that it’s a humiliating physical violation of innocents, and the TSA continues to abuse us. You’re not going to stop hearing about how outraged right-thinking Americans are until the TSA stop molesting, harassing, stripping, irradiating, and detaining people.

    Bill, I will not fly while this offensive charade continues, but I usually fly 20+ roundtrips per year, and re-arranging my life comes at a great personal cost. I won’t take it lying down. I won’t let them strip me of my right to travel indefinitely. And I won’t stop talking about it until I can fly without the threat of unwanted sexual contact.

  • Carrie Charney

    Whatever Napolitano is drinking, I want it!!!

  • carver

    @jacqui

    Let me clarify. When we disagree with a governmental practice or policy, it has become commonplace to declare, a priori, that the policy is unlawful or unconstitutional. That’s my beef. Those who disagree with the TSA’s practice declare it unconstitutional yet provide no support for that proposition.

    @Frostysnowman

    1. ok
    2. I would argue that that is spin. The ways in which CJR declared success are inapposite to the stated goals of National Opt Out day.
    3. Do you have any basis or substantiation for that belief? Seems like it would be a much bigger story to show people mudslinging the TSA.

  • cjr

    “Those who disagree with the TSA’s practice declare it unconstitutional yet provide no support for that proposition.”

    If you think no support has been provided, then you are simply not bothering to read anything that has been stated on the issue. And I’m not going to repeat it (again) for your benefit.

    “The ways in which CJR declared success are inapposite to the stated goals of National Opt Out day.”

    The stated goal of National Opt Out Day was to bring attention to the issue of how TSA is violating our rights and how they utterly fail to make air travel safer.

    Considering the “media driven hype” and the CONTINUED stories of TSA idiocy and failure to protect anybody, it was a resounding success. Byproducts of this were TSA proving itself to be a complete waste of time and money and the media proving that they care more about creating the news rather than just reporting on it.

    But since you appear to be against National Opt Out Day, and indeed, any protection of our rights, you can continue to keep your head in the sand with your ‘blame the victim’ mentality on the issue.

  • http://www.cogitamusblog.com/2010/12/rape-victim-refuses-tsa-breast-grope-handcuffed-arrested-by-police.html Lisa Simeone

    Carver wrote: “Those who disagree with the TSA’s practice declare it unconstitutional yet provide no support for that proposition.”

    Hello??? Fourth Amendment?? Ever heard of it?

    Keep writing about this, Chris. Those of us who value our civil liberties and think the Constitution is more than just a quaint document get it. We know we have the right to travel without being bullied, intimidated, and sexually assaulted. We know the TSA is a sham. We know Napolitano and Pistole are characters out of Orwell (apologies to Orwell, who would’ve created someone less bumbling than Big Sis). We know it’s only a matter of time before T*tS’n'A*s brings its authoritarian performances to a train, bus, subway, mall, theater near you. And we know all it would take is one explosion, no matter how small, somewhere, anywhere, for most of the sheeple in this country to fall right into line. We have to keep fighting this thing or pretty soon, there’ll be nowhere in this country where we’re free.

    Oh, and as for the paranoiacs who think A Terrorist! is hiding around every corner — stay home. Or get off your freaking phone while driving, something I bet most of you do all the time, which will get you killed a lot quicker than some bogeyman terrorist on an airplane.

  • Nobody

    The Department of Homeland Security is working “24/7, 364 days a year,” –Napolitano

    The difficulty is knowing which day is the day Homeland Security is not working. Seems like more than she says.

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46665.html#ixzz19RIKZMlj

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46665.html

  • Bill

    Chris,
    I can offer no better evidence to convince you to move past this issue than this thread.
    Please read this thread again and then make your decision.

  • Jennifer

    Chris,
    The best evidence to convince you to keep writing about the TSA (other than the fact that this is a travel blog and the TSA impacts travel) is the last sentence of your entry, “Because the Department of Homeland Security is planning to take its unconstitutional searches to a mall, train station and bus stop near you.” The pat answer for those of us who don’t want to be irradiated, microwaved or molested is that we should just not fly. That’s no longer a choice, as if it were a legitimate choice in the first place.

    It’s your blog, Chris, and you get to decide what to write about. Those who don’t like the content can write their own blog and stop demanding that you write what they want to read. I would say the same thing if you wrote entries praising TSA to the moon.