Who Decides What A Dual-Use Item Is?

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.


Robert M. Thorson, a Connecticut geologist, has traveled throughout his career to conferences and conventions, and for the last three years, he has taken with him one of his favorite rocks, a banded piece of the Hebron Gneiss, which he describes as resembling “a broken slice of layer cake composed of licorice and cream cheese.” This is one of Thorson’s favorite rocks, and, he says, a touchstone for those who have attended his lectures.

While attempting to fly to Hood River, Oregon, to attend the Stone Foundation‘s annual meeting, Thorson had his rock confiscated by TSA staff at Bradley International Airport. Thorson does not check luggage on business trips, so the rock was in his carry-on bag. A TSA employee pronounced it a “dual-use item,” then called her supervisor, who inspected the specimen and also declared it a dual-use item. Thorson was given the option of going back to the ticket counter and checking his rock as baggage, but he did not think he had time to do so. He then asked if he could claim the rock upon his return, and was told that he could not.

In his editorial in the Hartford Courant, Thorson muses that perhaps a stethoscope should be considered a dual-use item because a doctor could strangle someone with it. For some time now, I have been asking why pockets knives have to be confiscated, but neckties and tube socks are okay, despite the fact that both could be used to strangle someone, as could the cord of a notebook computer or other electronic device or appliance.

Says Thorson:

Who knows? Perhaps your tax dollars will be used by an internal think tank of agency hire-ups to ponder why on earth a geologist would travel with a rock. Who knows? Perhaps the government will wiretap my phone or check my library records to see whether I have checked out a Koran or a book about stone-age warfare.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest