When you read last week that terrorists have discussed surgically implanting explosives in passengers so they could blow up airliners, did you feel a little less aggrieved about the TSA agents who supposedly patted down a 95-year-old woman in a wheelchair?

That patdown was a late-June outrage du jour about the Transportation Security Administration. The story: The elderly woman was patted down and, when agents felt something suspicious, told her to remove her adult diaper. The TSA denies that the incident happened.

The question is, would you rather have TSA agents underreach or overreach, because they’re not going to get it just right every time. When they overreach, the result can be a little indignity. When they get lax, the danger is much greater.

Yet there’s a revolt in the making over full body scans and patdowns and other aggressive tactics by TSA agents. Case in point: Texas lawmakers recently passed a bill to rein in patdowns at airports in the state. “Airport security must focus on stopping terrorists, not harassing innocent travelers,” Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst told reporters.

Who can argue? Lt. Gov. Dewhurst apparently has great confidence in his ability to pick out the terrorists from the innocents.

Yes, the story of the 95-year-old woman sounded like one for the overreach category. But we were more disturbed by another recent story: the failure of air security to stop Olajide Oluwaseun Noibi, who flew from New York to Los Angeles on a fake boarding pass, and may have taken other flights with phony tickets.

People don’t want to be poked and scanned when they travel. They don’t want to be delayed by long lines at security either. But the story about al-Qaida contemplating how to hide explosives on travelers is a sharp reminder about priorities.

TSA officials are looking at how they can better balance convenience and security for the millions of people who pass through the nation’s airports.

TSA Administrator John Pistole recently told Congress that screeners will reduce patdowns of children.

The Chicago Tribune’s Jon Hilkevitch recently reported on a trial program at O’Hare International Airport that will exclude pilots from patdowns, relying on the validity of background checks of pilots. Pistole said at a Senate hearing that the TSA will move this year on a “trusted traveler” program that will allow passengers who have undergone a background check to speed through security whenever they come to the airport.

Promises of express lanes for screened passengers have floated around for years, and strike us as the best option. Short of that, putting up with the occasional indignity is just a (maddening) cost of flying. We have exceedingly limited sympathy for travelers under the misimpression that they’re actually strolling into courtrooms and are innocent until proven guilty.

The point of airport security isn’t to judge the moral worth or failing of each person headed for the gate. The point is to screen out people who raise suspicions in order to keep air travel what it is under the current, admittedly invasive protocols: incredibly safe by any statistical measure you choose. The TSA can’t presume that the next passenger in line is safe simply because the passenger looks harmless. So did the 9/11 hijackers.

Nor, though, can the agency ignore the rising anger of the public and some government officials attuned to complaints from voters. The solution is to redirect this criticism of the current rules as applied into a push to get the trusted traveler system up and running.

We say this realizing that, even if it were implemented tomorrow, the first priority of air travel wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) be, “Bow to every traveler’s sensitivities.” The first priority would be what it is today: “Arrive alive.”

Chicago Tribune, July 12