Wouldn't a full-body scan be more revealing than a pat-down? I guess i understand where he's coming from, but I thought most people went the other way (opting-out of the full-body scan in favor of a pat-down).

The scan is entirely digital, and uses a generic image (to "protect passengers(sic) privacy") to show an agent the targeted alarm.

In that way, a pat-down is more intrusive, to me.

On another note, I always assumed Senators to be immune to this sort of "questioning".

Thanks. I don't think that part of the article had been posted when I read it.