TSA: 'Not in the Risk Elimination Business'

James Fallows and Jeffrey Goldberg, two of the star writers at our sister publication, the Atlantic, got the chance to interview TSA Administrator John Pistole this week. They've posted a transcript.

It's a pretty fascinating discussion on the agency's approach to security. Here are some of Pistole's comments:

• "We're not in the risk-elimination business, we're in risk mitigation, informed by the latest intelligence, informed by our friends [in the intelligence agencies], and informed by the results of our covert testing."
• "If people take an affirmative act of engaging in -- in this case, aviation -- they want to get on a plane -- they're taking an affirmative act to do that. Then, yes, there is authority to do the administrative search for public safety purposes. As I've said a number of times, I think reasonable people could disagree as to the precise technique used on each person. So for you, it may be patting around the knees or the armpits. You might be sensitive there. For others, it is groins. For women, it is breasts, for which procedure hasn't changed. Our protocols on the breast have been the same for years now."
• "I've had members of Congress say 'Look, I am a member of Congress, I am not a terrorist; This is absurd. Why do I have to go through a physical screening? It's an insult.' And I say, Well, in the legislation that authorizes TSA every year, they specifically include provisions that members of Congress will go through physical screening. By the way, I go through screening every time. I went through [the full-body scanner] three times last week in L.A., Long Beach and Las Vegas."
• "I'm much more interested in the person than the items the person is carrying. I want to know more about that person, and I want to be able to use all available intelligence, and Secure Flight, which we just completed in terms of the international roll out, is one step in that regard. ... But as a society, as soon as you use the word 'profiling,' for some that invokes a just terrible image. So I think what we are seeing is a public policy debate over which is better: Is it hands-on pat downs for less than 3 percent of the traveling public or advanced imaging technology, or is it [some form of profiling]?"
• "We've got several thousand behavioral detection officers who are in the airports, and looking at things. I especially like when we do what we call "plays." We have a canine team walk through a terminal with plainclothes behavior detection officers following, to see how people respond to the canine team."
• "I think that the next attack is inevitable. Given my [FBI] experience, there all these domestic lone wolves. Whether it's the guy at Springfield, Illinois last year, or Houston, or the guy in Portland most recently. A group around Newburgh, NY, the Bronx. People who are dealing with what they believe to be jihadists. And they want to kill Americans."
• "I mean, look, I've got 26 and three-quarter years as a career person, I got five months on the political side. So there's no personal issues for me on that. All the debate over this for me simply comes down to, what is the most effective security to ensure that people get from here to there safely. I mean, that's the bottom-line equation for me. You can politicize, you can say whatever, but what can we do that balances the risk and security in a meaningful fashion? And right now, so I see us as doing that best possible job right now. I'm hoping, as the technology develops, that we can do less physically invasive."