For the past few days the news has been full of stories about people complaining that the new TSA security procedures involving either full body scans or strip searches are "an invasion of privacy" and "violate a person's Constitutional right to privacy."
The easy one first.
The US Constitution doesn't say that. Show me where the Constitution guarantees the "right to privacy" and I'll kiss your ass on Main Street and give you a week to draw a crowd.
As for the procedures being an "invasion of privacy," I disagree on that one too. If you want to get technical, the US Supreme Court has ruled that in a public place - such as an airport - you have no "reasonable expectation of privacy" since the area is out in the open and is designed for full public access.
But on the other hand, I understand why people are upset about both procedures. The full body scan shows whoever is looking at the screen an outline of your body sans clothing, which can be unsettling at best. And the pat-downs just go against the natural resistance to having someone touch your body that you don't necessarily want touching you.
Unfortunately, the reality is simple: thanks to the radical Muslims who have been wreaking havoc on the world in unconventional ways, the airlines and the Feds are now forced to take unconventional measures to prevent further attacks. So if you want to be pissed off at someone, be pissed off at the radical Muslims and not the Feds or the airlines. I've always said that the two things in life that everyone wants but are not convenient are safety and security. You don't get either one by doing nothing, and you have to sacrifice and/or be inconvenienced to get both.
The other reality is that if the Feds and the airlines stop their procedures because of the complaints about "invasion of privacy" and we lose another airliner to a terrorist attack, the same people who complained the loudest about the "invasion of privacy" will also be the first ones to jump up and complain that the Feds didn't do enough to prevent the attack.
So take your pick, people, security or privacy - you can't have both.
Some folks have suggested that since the Muslims are the ones responsible for this the only ones that should go through the procedures are Muslims. To me, this is nothing short of just plain stupid, not to mention illegal. Can you say, "PROFILING," boys and girls? How about "DISCRIMINATION?"
The big problem with this flawed line of thinking is that you're going to single out every single member of the world's largest religion and punish them - and that's what it would be, make no mistake about it - for the actions of a radical group within that religion. Yeah, I've heard the saying, "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims" before, and I agree with it. But the simple fact is that you can't punish the entire group for the actions of a few. This is not only stupid, it's also wrong and in this country, it's illegal.
Aside from that, sooner or later - and I'm thinking sooner than later - another radical group out there, or maybe the radical Islamic group itself, will figure out that you're only looking at Muslims, so they recruit non-Muslims into their movement. Next thing you know one of those non-Muslims blows up an airplane, and everyone will sit back wondering, "Now just how did THAT happen?"
And then there's this: just how do you tell who is a Muslim and who isn't? By their name? Their clothing? Their facial hair? I know plenty of people who were born and raised Muslim but renounced that religion for Christianity, but they still have their Muslim name, still wear their traditional clothing, and still look like a Muslim.
But they're not Muslims. So now what, genius?
The bottom line is this: profiling a part of the population for ANY reason is illegal, it's wrong, and it's stupid. It goes against everything this country stands for, and in case you forgot your American History 101, this country was founded by people who fled their native-born land to escape religious persecution. And the idea of screening Muslims and only Muslims is exactly that - religious persecution.
And that's wrong. PERIOD.
You got a problem with the screening and security procedures at the airports? Fine, no problem - jump in your car and drive. Take a bus. Take the train. Do something else, but just don't fly.
What, it's too inconvenient to do any of that because it takes too long?
Hmmmmm, what was I saying about safety and security being inconvenient?
IHC
5 comments:
Ray, you make some very good points...here it comes...BUT....
As any intelligent person knows, these "security" measures are more show than go. Certainly better than nothing, but limited at best. I certainly have no issue with any security measures.
There is plenty of room for improvement. First, the majority of TSA people are low level, low paid, and yes sometimes low class folks with some power over the public, and they love to exercise it! Usually with little to no tact or common courtesy. Just come through Richmond sometime, it's one of the worst. I have told these folks directly when I have been talked down to or was treated rudely. Recently a TSA agent directed me to put my wallet in the bin to be x-rayed. I requested to have it hand search in front of me and she refused saying that "we'll watch it". I told them, "What makes you think that I trust you folks?" Of course this made me very popular with them and I ran the whole gambit of their searches. As you know a TSA agent was just arrested for stealing money from folks wallets and purses, in Illinois, I believe.
That's all I have time for right now....
The only part I'll disagree on is the "more show than go" comment. ANY security measure is limited, because sooner or later someone is going to find a way around it. The bottom line is that it's impossible to prevent ALL terrorist attacks, no matter how hard you try - sooner or later, your enemies are going to find a way around your defenses, and that's a fact.
But in the mean time, you have to do SOMETHING for two reasons: one, you can't just sit back and let the bad guys have a field day with you, and two, those people who are bitching about the pat-downs being "invasive" and a "violation of privacy" are the very same ones who will be screaming at the top of their lungs that the Feds "did nothing to prevent" or "didn't do enough to prevent" the attack when it happens.
As for the quality of the TSA folks, I couldn't agree more. The ones I've seen at Columbia Airport here don't impress me at all - I wouldn't trust then to guard my doghouse, let alone an airport. The TSA starts them off at minimum wage, and you and I both know that ANY job that starts out at minimum wage is going to get the dregs of society who can't find a higher-paying job because they're too stupid, too lazy, have a criminal record, or all of the above.
Awesome editorial. I am sick of these people thinking that convenience over safety is desirable. We can't go back to the way things were, it's too late for that.
And like you said, there are other options. I prefer to ride or drive over flying any day, even the way things were BEFORE 9/11.
Keep up the good work.
Thanks, Alleydude, I appreciate the good words!
I am not sure why everyone is bitching now about all of this security stuff. I remember being literally tackled at Moisant Airport in New Orleans over 35 years ago by security types when I made a really stupid comment to the gal checking people's carry on stuff when she saw a US Divers depth gauge strapped to my writs (didn't want it in the unpressurized baggage compartment). Since it was pretty obvious (to me at least) what it was, I flippantly said it was a timing device for an incendiary bomb. I found myself under two very large men very shortly thereafter who escorted me to a nice room nearby and gave me a very bad time. Now that was back in the '70's, and no one seemed to be concerned with airport security then. I have since had a very healthy respect for what they are trying to do...and I don't shoot my Cajun mouth off anymore to the agents. Point here is, why were we not worrying about the intrusiveness of security back then, but all of a sudden it is a big deal.
Ray, you got it right, the people bitching now would be screaming the loudest if another plane got hit.
Post a Comment