|
I know I am about to get pummeled here on DU. Hell, maybe I'll even delete this post if I can't take it. Not because I'm a wimp, but I don't know if I want to get all bloodied in a fight by defending the TSA. I'd rather fight for something I REAAALLLY believe in. Still...here I go, into the jaws of hell...I guess somebody's gotta do it.
My husband used to work with homeland security. He would investigate various security technologies and whether they were feasible to implement on a large scale in airports across the country. During that time, he had access to all kinds of technology, and he is truly one of the most knowledgeable people in the world on the subject of airport security. Although he played no hand in the implementation of scanners, he knows a lot about the subject. He also knows quite a bit about the kinds of problems the TSA has faced since 9/11.
Let me add, my husband flies all the time all over the country. Being in airports and on airplanes is a necessity for his job. He once told me, if people knew all that he knows about the potential dangers of flying, then no one would ever get on a plane. I asked him to elaborate and he declined. He knows I already have a terrible phobia of flying as it is. I am not only terrified of mechanical problems occurring, but I am also afraid of the myriad ways a person could blow up a plane. So, in the interest of disclosure, let me say...when I see scanners and metal detectors and pat-downs...I'm okay with that.
Lately, however, I have seen a rash of reports in the news and the blogosphere pertaining to the "invasive, violating" nature of TSA pat-downs and scanning machines. I've seen it all lately: from a news broadcast of a tired, screaming 3-year-old getting a pat-down from a TSA agent, to the gut-wrenching story of a cancer survivor who had to expose her prosthetic breast to agents. Both liberals and conservatives have used such stories to prove that we are finally, truly a police state...Whoa! Wait a second. There is so much wrong with this narrative...where to start?
First of all, let's begin at the beginning: security. The primary goal of those who work in aviation security is to ensure the safety of the people on planes and in airports, as well as the prevention of another 9-11 scenario, in which airplanes could be used to target national landmards with widespread death and destruction. This is undoubtedly a daunting task.
My husband has met and worked with the experts in our homeland security labs. He stresses that these are dedicated individuals who take the safety of our transportation systems very seriously. They are not vindictive souls out to get us. The knowledge they gain from their work enables them to calculate exactly the amount of material necessary to bring down a plane. They know all various methods of concealment, and they must be willing to envision all possible attack scenarios - no matter how wild or inconceivable it may appear on first glance. Their knowledge is not broadcast to the general public for obvious reasons; but, it is shared with the TSA. In other words, TSA officials are trained to recognize the EXACT volume required to bring down a plane. It is a frightfully small amount.
So, let's talk about the body scanners... Prior to the installment of these scanners, there was NO reliable method of detecting plastic explosives (or ceramic knives or guns for that matter) on a person's body. The amount of explosives required is so small, that it could easily be hidden and remain undetected. If a woman has a prosthetic breast, and the space of that breast is equivalent to the space needed to hide explosives, what would you do? Would you demand to explore the area in question with more precision, or would you allow the woman to board a plane with scores, perhaps hundreds, of other people and assume she is a cancer survivor and nothing more. Most likely, she is the latter. But it is the job of the agent to be certain. Now, one could argue that such a scenario goes too far. She should not have to expose her prosthetic; nor should anyone with any prothetics need to have them further examined, for that matter. But if that is line which the public wants to draw in the sand, then it is necessary to be willing to live with the possible risk. If a terrorist knows, I can hide my explosives in my prothetic limb or breast or whatever, then we as a people must be willing to accept planes possibly blowing up. Period. This is a very bitter truth.
In other words: Security or not? The majority of the public is willing to accept the inconvenience (or, at times even, the humiliation) caused by airport security. But, if the methods adapted for security purposes become too invasive, then perhaps we must be willing to say, “I am willing to accept the increased probability that another plane will come down, even if I or a loved one may be in that plane”. Are we at that point?
This brings me to the second part of my post. I believe there is a much larger issue concerning all of the recent negative press aimed at the TSA. We, as liberals, need to be careful how we allow this debate to be framed. It is one thing to say, I am all for security, but I do not wish to live in a country in which a government agency imposes such scrutiny on the people that a woman must expose her prosthetic breast, or that a TSA agent can see a nude image of my body, or that my child be subjected to pat-downs while throwing a tantrum. I am willing to live with the risk, and the TSA has gone too far. That's one thing. However, we all know the Republicans want to limit the size of the federal government -- including the TSA. So the question becomes, do you want to see the TSA get replaced with private security firms? Because, if we continue to allow the debate to be framed by conservatives, what we will have in the end could be much more expensive and with much less oversight.
(On the subject of TSA personnel: After 9-11, the TSA had severe problems with their personnel. They could not find quality workers willing to do the job for $14.00 an hour. Would you want to pat down people all day for that? In order to hire a higher caliber of worker within their budget, it was necessary for TSA to offer the employees incentive. It was decided to offer TSA employees the same career path as a border patrol agent. In other words, it was no longer a dead-end job, but rather one with a possible career path. Through that, the TSA was able to hire a whole new quality of worker and keep them. A private company would not be able to make that same offer.)
Let's be careful how we approach this. If we continue to shout accusations of "police state" and "violating" and "invasive" and such, we may be aiding and abetting the demise of one of our federal agencies. Are you ready for that?
Okay. Throw your punches.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
