Last Line of Defense

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"

~ Benjamin Franklin

Today is the busiest travel day of the year. Instead of preparing entertaining carry-ons for your young kids, you need to mentally prepare them for a possible "pat down" at the airport. You will be contradicting everything you have taught them about their bodies being private and that no one should ever touch them in a way that makes them feel uncomfortable. Not only may they receive a "pat down" against their will and yours, all will be subjected to the new scanners which leave nothing to the imagination. I agree with Ben Franklin that those who "give up essential liberty", which I would include flashing my genitals on a TSA screen as pretty essential, do not deserve liberty or safety. However, the American people are now voicing their complaints loud and clear that they are not "giving up their essential liberties" the government is taking them.

A few arguments against the new airport security measures.

1. Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated..." We have a Constitutional and God given right to the privacy of our bodies, or "persons". A 3 year old, a Nun, cancer patients, a 6 year old boy made shirtless, a young man who passed the metal and enhanced scanners, do not present a reasonable threat, or solicit a reasonable search. Furthermore, in order to pose a reasonable threat, there must have been some sort of cause or "reason" to indicate a possible threat. Randomness, prosthetics, shrapnel, reconstructive implants, to name a few, do not warrant invasive, embarrassing, and unconstitutional of citizens person.

2. Profiling: Ah oh, I'm treading on politically incorrect territory, flag Big Brother! All security and law enforcement agencies use some sort of profiling. It is not always racial, it is socioeconomic, age, religion, political affiliations, etc. Profiling is using statistical evidence to narrow the suspect pool. When tracking a serial killer, they typically look for a white, male, middle of life, intelligent, unstable abusive backgrounds, typically grew up in poverty. Why isn't there more of a terrorist profile screening? It is more reasonable to ask detailed questions when purchasing a ticket, than viewing x-ray-naked hybrid images of people once entering the airport. How much quicker would their be outrage if there were standard questions such as, race, religion, recent travel, international citizenship, etc.

3. Double Standard: Where is the ACLU? Where is NOW? During the later Bush years, there was outrage at the invasive Patriot Act, which included wire taps, information sharing, access to records, foreign intelligence wire taps, "sneak and peek warrants", to name a few. The ACLU responded to the Patriot Act with their "Reclaiming Patriotism" report. (Doesn't it sound like a Glenn Beck rally?!) If I could use a few of their own words, in expressing my outrage at the new TSA standards. "[TSA] has expanded the government's authority to pry into people's private lives with little or no evidence of wrongdoing. [TSA] must recognize that overbroad, ineffective, or abusive surveillance programs are counterproductive to long-term government interests because they violate constitutional standards and undermind public confidence and support..." If you would like to use an absolutely elloquent argument against TSA, go to the ACLU's Reclaiming Patriotism report. Do I need to point out that at least the Patriot Act went before Congress to get passed, and also in 2006 to get it's provisions extended? I would assume that one of the most invasive counter-terrorist acts, the current screenings and pat downs would not have passed the Congress, if they were even given that chance.

4. LAST Line of Defense: Has the Department of Homeland Security raised the threat level? No. What was the last known terrorist attempt? The thankfully thrwarted printer bombs travelling in cargo from Yemen. Have we exhausted all other investigative measures before we, by definition, sexually harass travelling citizens who majority are law abiding citizens? No, we refuse to gather intelligence on travellers, with the fear of not being politically correct. Do we enforce pat downs and screenings onto anyone travelling into our country, where the greater threat lies? Yes, that is part of Secretary Napolitano's new directives. As I have read more, I have been surprised to find all levels of travel have new restrictions. Cargo, international to the US, domestic, carry ons, etc. However, I still believe that the vital and essential aspect of investigation, intelligence gathering or some might call profiling, is still missing. I see pornographic screenings and enhanced pat downs as the absolute last line of defense. Until absolutely every effort is made, every investigative tool is used, there is no need to violate law abiding citizens rights in the name of safety. However, the influx of safety measures begs the question:

What do they know that they are not telling us?

5. My last point is, where do we draw the line? What if the next terrorist attempt is a chemical tube hidden where the sun don't shine? Will there ever be a point where cavity searches are necessary to fly? What about strip searches? We have already seen a few instances nation wide. When you open the door to infringing on not only someone's "houses, papers, and effects" but their "persons", when will an act not be justified. If scanning children, removing their any of their clothes, touching private and typically deemed sexual parts, is not crossing the line, what is? I am not willing to give up my house, papers, effects, and especially my body for safety.