Once upon a time, travelers boarded planes with a minimum of fuss, personal discomfort, or embarrassment. Then 9-11 happened and the government quickly rushed in to save us. The creation of the TSA and its relatively new "enhanced screening" is apparently all that is standing between us and certain death. One could say that its priceless if they look past the 2011 fiscal year operating budget of approximately $8.1 billion. Our government is serious about keeping us safe. The Department of Transportation statistics show 637 million enplaned passengers in 2011. What a bargain.
"But, it's not about the money." True........it also has to do with seeing how easily people are willing to give up rights and personal responsibility. "But there are bad guys out there and they want to get us." True.............and if they are really determined, taking off their shoes at an airport is NOT going to deter them. Because they will have figured out a way to accomplish their goals and it will not be discovered via the screening process. Thanks to the restrictions on what passengers are allowed to take on board, the most they will be able to do is put together an awesome facial mask or body scrub..........unless MacGyver is in the next row over and can make use of those 3 oz travel size bottles.
So I propose we begin to accept there is an amount of risk we take every day we are alive. Nothing wrong with trying to minimize risks to the degree we have personal control over. But it is time we stop being a nation of pansies and engage common sense. Israel has offered to teach US their method(s) of airport profiling. Perhaps they have a leg up in this particular area since the raid on Entebbe. It's particularly interesting that a USA Today.com article dated 9-13-2001 states in part, "Israeli experts said Wednesday that, had they been used in the United States, they might have prevented Tuesday's horrific airborne attacks in New York and Washington. But some would have proved difficult to implement in the United States, and others — like profiling — would not meet the test of the U.S. Constitution." But feeling up every person passing through O'Hare must be okay with the Founders intentions. After all, it is their duty to protect us, isn't it? (B.M.)
Counterpoint
What is under discussion here is whether intrusive surveillance, including pat-downs and full-body scans, should be necessary for boarding a commercial flight. We are not discussing whether such surveillance is, in principle, a good thing. If that were the question, I would be arguing the other position. Except for the ultra-libs, who want you pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt, and ultra-conservatives, who want police to have the right to accost “suspected” illegal immigrants without probable cause-- except for these fringe groups, I hope we can all agree that the government should not have the right to detain and inspect a citizen in the course of his law-abiding day.
But who would deny that the government has the right to search me if I am, say, having a private lunch with the President?
So the real question is whether boarding a plane rises to the level of urgency that would allow the government to search American citizens. I argue yes, for the following reasons.
1) Personal reasons: I love my in-laws. They live in Washington State, so I typically fly at least once a year. The only thing that enables me to sit comfortably on the airplane, a.k.a the-flaming-ball-of-death-waiting-to-happen, is the knowledge that every man, woman and, yes, child has been scanned, searched, wanded and, if necessary, cavity searched. If this were not the case I would refuse to fly, as, I’m sure, would a majority of Americans.
2) Economic reasons: As you might guess from number one above, the airlines themselves want strict inspection of passengers. Without such inspections the airlines would go bankrupt from loss of revenue and loss of airplanes due to the sudden rise in terrorist activity. And since we have had a total of zero destroyed planes since 9/11, a single incident would constitute a sudden rise in such activity.
3) Legal reasons: Flying on an airplane is not, strictly speaking, a right. I know this is hard to swallow for a nation of people who are used to looking on everything as a right. But the rights our creator endowed us with are limited. For example, getting into my car is a right. It is my private property. I shouldn’t need to be searched to get in my car, or be pulled over for not wearing my seat-belt in my car. But unless I own a plane, I am subject to whatever restrictions the owners of that plane wish to place on me. Most importantly, it always remains my right to refuse to board the plane, thereby solving the problem under discussion.
4) The “that’s never happened before” argument: One argument I often hear in opposition to pat-downs of six-year-olds is, “Like a six year old is going to have a bomb.” Let me make a few points to demonstrate how annoying I find this argument. a) No one expects a 6 year-old to simply “have” a bomb. As even the most strident libertarian knows, the concern is over whether an adult would put a bomb on a six-year-old. b) At this point the argument becomes, “Who would do such a thing,” and the answer, of course, is “Someone evil and stupid enough to blow up a plane full of people.” c) We live in a world where people randomly gun down strangers for no reason, children lynch each other at school, adults blow themselves up to serve Allah, and other insane perverts perform other similar actions on a daily basis. Waiting until evil people figure out a new way to kill us before we explore the possible ways they could kill us is an attitude that ought to have died with our 3,000 plus fellow citizens on 9/11.
5) To head-off any arguments the opposition might make, one that would allow for “some” searches but not “intrusive” searches like pat-downs, let me remind them of this: distinctions between intrusive and non-intrusive searches is one that will ultimately be decided by lawyers. And once the lawyers get involved, who knows where the line will be drawn. So the question should be between no searches and intrusive searches, not a mythical middle ground.
6) God has entrusted this world to us, and He expects us to govern it justly and lovingly. Although it doesn’t make sense, in a sinful world it is more loving to search a six-year-old than to allow the child to be blown up. And it is more than just to allow potential passengers the freedom not to fly.
I will close with a quote from Ben Franklin, who said “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” It should be remembered that Franklin was referring to quartering soldiers and not to flying in airplanes, which to him would have seemed like sorcery. And it must also be mentioned that there is nothing temporary about not dying in a plane crash. (D.W.)
No comments:
Post a Comment