Okay, I've been itching to write a new blog about something and stretching my mind to figure out what that something should be. Then, as I opened my homepage today, I found yet another article regarding the recent changing to the TSA screening procedures at airports across the country. And, well, there it is. I'm going to give my thoughts on such a hot topic. So here we go.
OH MY GOD! Seriously!? I cannot believe that such criticism is popping up regarding the TSA's rules and changes in how they will keep our airlines safe. For those of you who don't even know what I'm talking about, here's a recap from my perspective.
From my understanding, the Transportation Security Administration, (TSA) recently reviewed its policies in regards to how it screens passengers entering airport security. The head of the TSA has laid out two options as it begins to implement these procedures: either a full body scan, or if a passenger chooses not to get the scan, they will get a full body pat-down, one that will potentially go into all of the pockets and folds of your body.
Since this announcement was made, I have seen non-stop on television, the internet, blog posts, and the like, people's "outrage" that they would have to be subjected to something that would strip them from their "rights."
Before I begin, I need to preface this with a couple of things. First, I don't have reports on "Does it really keep us safe?" And I really can't speak for anybody else, but myself in regards to my feeling on the matter, but I hope to voice what seems to be the minority opinion here and see if anybody else out there could potentially agree with me.
With that said, let's get back to this "right" issue. Where in the United States Constitution does it give anybody the "right" to ride as a passenger on an airplane? This is what is frustrating me. People feel that their "rights" are being taken away because some security personnel is going to look at their full body scan, or potentially pat them down before they board an aircraft carrying 200 other people on board. I've got a newsflash for you, this isn't a right. It isn't your right to ride on an airplane, to fly across the country. You pay for the ability to use the technology we have developed to do so. But, in paying for such ability, you also give up a couple of freedoms that you would have on the ground otherwise. You give up the "assumption" of others on that flight, that you are going to do no harm to anybody else on board.
Like it, love it, or hate it, that is the state of the world we live in. We can no longer assume that the person next to us has our best intentions in mind. No, whether white, black, gray, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Buhdist, gay, straight, young or old, the people around us could potentially be a threat. Is it fair? No! Again, is it fair? I say HELL NO, it's not fair. But the same scrutiny I'm going to afford the person who sits next to me on a crowded bus, or who I assist at the store on a regular basis, is the same scrutiny being applied to me by others. I know I'm the safest person in the world, but he doesn't know that about me. Just as you know you're the safest person in the world, the least likely to do no harm to anybody else, but do I know that? No.
Look at the circumstances of an aircraft flying in the air. There are two big reasons why people don't like to fly. The first, well, is obvious: they don't like heights. The second reason, the one I'm going to focus on: they don't like to give up control. This is one of the biggest reasons I didn't enjoy flying for so long. It's a big reason a lot of people get scared before take off. When that plane leaves the ground, you are no longer in control. You are no longer calling the shots. You have willfully left your life in the hands of others--other people whom you have never met, and who you are trusting in to get you to your destination safely. And, so is everybody else on that flight. Everybody else places their lives in the hands of the pilots, of the staff on board, in the hands of the staff on the ground ensuring that everybody who enters that flight has nothing on them that could potentially harm the others on board. Again, this is a decision everybody on that flight voluntarily makes. There are alternatives to getting around in the world, flying is only one of them.
What I don't understand is why people have an issue with this? I for one am fully comfortable being patted down, screened, touched, searched, whatever, if it means that everybody else on board is getting the same thing done to them to ensure that when I get on that plane, it is a controlled situation. You'll hear many arguments out there, and one in particular really fries my chicken. They say "don't search everybody, target people who could potentially hurt us, or do something."
Well, you know what, there's a problem with that argument. We don't know somebody's intentions. We don't know if somebody has planned to do something in the air to hijack an airplane, or blow up a bomb. We don't know somebody's thoughts, or motivations, and because of this, how are you going to target specific people? Are you going to use race? So all middle-eastern people should be searched, but not white. So that white terrorist can get on board with a chemical bomb, no problem, because his intentions are not to harm us. Perhaps religion is a better way to determine what people to search and what people not to search. Muslims always get searched because their religion is violent. But Christians, no, leave them alone, they won't hurt anybody--especially that Pastor who wants to burn the Quaran, if he chooses to do it in the air, it's no big deal.
Doesn't anybody else see the dangers in profiling any individual? You run the risk of missing another individual who doesn't fit that profile. You run the risk of missing somebody who hasn't caused anybody any trouble, or raised any flags, but just one day decides to take a loaded gun pass the TSA officers who won't screen him because he's a former soldier, who happens to be white, and who has no reason to be suspected of anything. He brings that gun aboard an airplane and shoots a window out, bringing the plane down into a building full of people.
In my opinion, the real problem here is not that people are afraid of their rights, it's that they have become complacent. Somewhere in the nine years since September 11, 2001, people have forgotten that there are real people out there who want to kill us, there are real people out there who hate America. There are real people out there that at the first sign of weakness, at the first sign that we've let our guard down, will attempt to attack us. Those of us who live in Detroit almost realized that reality last December. There was a real person with a real bomb, who got aboard a real airplane, and that person attempted to set the bomb off. By some grace of God, that bomb malfunctioned and thankfully, tragedy was averted. I bet if you ask any one of those passengers on that airplane whether they think this new procedure by TSA agents should be as controversial as it has become, they'd say "hell no." They'd be thankful that something is happening from stopping such a situation from occurring in the future.
Let's say the TSA is tossed from major airports from around the country and instead a private security screening company is put back into place. Let's say, they have less invasive procedures at searching individuals who board planes. Maybe just metal detectors, like have been used in the past. Let's say that we return things to the way they were before 9/11. And let's say somebody slips by and an attack occurs. Somebody flies a big jumbo jet into a local shopping mall, maybe even Mall of America, murdering thousands. You know what would happen besides the wide-spread panic that we know would follow? No, the critics would get on their horns and start shouting "what more could we have done? Why weren't they properly searched? Why didn't the screening officers do more to prevent them from getting on the plane?"
The people screaming about their "rights" are hypocrites in my opinion. They have become complacent in the status quo, because the status quo has kept us safe for nine years. But, in reality, the status quo has only kept us as safe as malfunctioning bombs, and missed attacks have allowed us. We are only one major attack away from the cries for more to be done like immediately after 9/11. There was a reason why the "Patriot Act" was passed without much resistance. It's because people were scared. People wanted something more to be done, and they were willing to sacrifice a little of their freedom to ensure that collectively we were all safe. But, as time has gone by, and the little bit of danger has slowly faded, people are ready and willing to ask for that freedom back, and bring us back to the same dangers that got us into the predicament we were in back in 2001.
I'm not suggesting anything as extreme as the patriot act. Because, that went to far. But in my opinion, the screenings are a catch-all for the missed report on that one individual that some CIA agent inadvertently forgot to file, and therefore that individual didn't make it on the no-fly list. The ability for TSA agents to actually screen us, sacrificing a little bit of our privacy, gives anybody and everybody who either flies in the air, or decides to go shopping this holiday season, the security of knowing that for as best as we can control, nobody boarded a flight with the resources to fly it into a busy and crowded shopping mall. Nobody's "rights" are being violated here. No, instead, if you choose to fly on an airplane, then you are choosing to make the aircraft safe for everybody on board.
Thank you for reading. As always, comments, questions, and anything else are welcome. Be clear, be fair, and be willing to discuss. Hate-filled comments, or the like, will not be tolerated.
Thanks,
Casey
No comments:
Post a Comment