From the  Washington Post (via AP), the United States Marshal’s Service is “exploring” the use of full-body scanners at courthouses. 

The U.S. Marshals Service, which is in charge of protecting federal judges nationwide, is exploring their use at federal courthouses. And two state courthouses in Douglas and El Paso counties in Colorado have already deployed full-body scanners that use radio waves to detect all objects on a person, including paper.

A guard in a separate room monitors the gray images with pixelated faces and genital areas, and the images aren’t stored on a computer. officials said.

Obviously, they would never look at my genitalia.  Union rules prohibit viewing anything that causes blindness. Yours, I dunno.  It’s already happening, sort of, in Colorado, but they’re all rocky mountain high, so nobody cares.

While Michael Prout, assistant director for judicial security, says that the Marshals haven’t decided to deploy the body scanners, they’ve already given it a tryout.

Prout declined to discuss the results of a full-body screening test, citing sensitive law enforcement and procurement information.

In a statement, the marshals said they didn’t receive any complaints from people passing through the scanners during the tests. The images of the full-body scans were saved on a computer hard drive, but weren’t accessible without an administrative password and weren’t reviewed by the marshals, according to the agency.

Sensitive indeed.  I can’t explain why there were no complaints, though it might be because the Marshals carry guns and the people going into the courthouse were under indictment?  Or maybe they, like all obedient lawyers, implicitly trust the marshals not to peek.

In any event, I naturally wanted to see whether it was just me, or anyone else, who thought that this might not be the best idea, given how popular it’s made the TSA of late.  I thus strolled over to  Crime and Consequences to see how true Americans reacted.  I’ll be damned.  Kurt and I were on the same page!

There are two important differences between courthouses and airports relevant here.  First, courthouses aren’t nearly as vulnerable as airplanes.  No one is going to kill thousands of people by bringing a box cutter knife into a courthouse.

Second, people can choose not to fly.  You can’t choose not to enter the courthouse.  If you are summoned as a juror or witness, you have to go.  If you are a litigant, you don’t have a practical alternative.  (Defaulting on a $1M complaint is an alternative, but not a practical one.)

That’s right, even our good buddy Kurt isn’t thrilled with the idea of magic x-ray glasses focused on his crotch.  What about underwear bombs smuggled into the courtroom?  Feh.  And what about those forced guests being of the criminal ilk?  Feh. 

Of course, we all want to live a completely risk-free life, with no possibility of any evil person blowing us up.  Or crashing into us.  Or looking at us with a mean face.  Or annoying us in any way shape or form.  But we will never live in such a world because the only it could exist is for us to sacrifice all that makes us a free people, pursuing happiness amongst other things.  There’s no perfect safety.  Not in a plane, a courthouse or our own living rooms. Get used to it and smile.

To the extent one wondered what it took before the anything-for-law-and-order guys were ready to draw a line in the sand, now we know.  Don’t mess with their junk.  Funny how nothing matters until it touches someone.  Does this mean anal probes are out of the question?  Even if the marshal’s promise to warm their hands first?

Nice to have you on board, Kurt.  Now put your seatbelt on for take off.  It’s gonna be a bumpy ride.