A friend (
Person 1)
posted this link on Facebook. The title/tagline reads, "If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested, man tells TSA agent after refusing body scanner."
The ensuing discussion went about as follows (edited for clarity and a minor improvement in brevity). Readers may wish to skip to the end to see my thoughts and then may wish to skim preceding comments to find the fodder for my response. Person 2: Um, would you rather your kids get scanned or blown up because some body brought a bomb on the plane? I mean, if you want to look at porn, you don't have to scan people with x-ray machines. Next thing you know doctors are going to get sued when they check for broken bones... This is really stupid.
Person 1: You realize that this same thing happened to another woman recently who had been raped soon before her flight, and she told the security officers this but they then felt her up and made her break down in a full-scale panic attack, right? You honestly think it's necessary to go through all this at the expense of human decency? Next they'll decide that this xray doesn't effectively show things that could be hidden in the rectum. Hope you enjoy fisting.Person 3: is it really though? the man, as far as we know (and we don't), showed absolutely no signs of illegal activity when entering the TSA line. 80% of those people passed through the metal detector, 20% were searched physically or sent through the backscatter machine. what about the 80% that were simply scanned for metal they could have easily done something just as harmful to that plane as the man forced into the minority. this has nothing to do with getting off on the mans exposure, however, it has EVERYTHING to do with his rights as a human being.
the fact that you would even allude to the idea that the man in question was merely offended because he felt that someone would ogle him via the machine shows you have little understanding of why this is such a big deal. there is absolutely no reason, in this particular situation, that that man should have been forced to be groped by someone against his consent, or be made to consent to such a search without being offered a less intrusive alternative. nor should he have been forced through the x-ray. A machine like that invades the privacy of a human being. and a physical search without exhausting all other opportunities first is beyond overstepping civil liberty for the sake of paranoia and control.
forms of search like this, like i said, should be a last resort after all other alternatives are exhausted or the man literally refuses to cooperate with any form of search. at which point the proper channels should be taken and handled professionally and courteously rather than telling the man to either take the only two options out of a battery of available, less intrusive if not completely non intrusive, forms of search (i.e. dogs, metal detectors, wands for the legs arms and crotch etc. etc.)
this kind of ultimatum stems from nothing but fear and abuse, yes we should be safe, secure, and, when human nature is taken into consideration, skeptical. However we have a pretty nifty set of liberties that we are guaranteed as Americans and human beings, both, written and implied.
Before you attempt to tell me why that man and myself are wrong, and you could as I have no idea who you are or how well you truly understand this situation nor your ability to form a cognitive argument, answer me this. lets say you're on your way to lets say....nebraska, you're departing from XNA, your only luggage is a single backpack containing nothing but clothes, a small quantity of makeup and care products, and the essential american's accessories (i.e. cellphone charger, pdf reader, ipod etc.etc.).
your pockets are emptied when you send your backpack through the scanner. everything checks out, but as you're about to press forward to the standing metal detector you're flagged and asked to go over to line with the backscatter.
you knowing you have absolutely nothing to hide but would rather go through the proper channels than be forced to literally expose yourself, not because you're scared of your body or anyone seeing it but simply because it's no different than them asking you to remove your outfit on the spot so they can be "sure".
finally after you refuse the backscatter they tell you to allow them to run their hands along the insides of your thighs or the bottom of your crotch on what amounts to doubt not even a hunch. or even as far as to enter a closed room and remove your pants grab your ankles and squat to "ensure" that you're not hiding any bombs in your vagina, because by your logic that should be done because you could have severely hurt a lot of people on that plane. you refuse that and they tell you either succumb to their will or remove yourself from the line. you decide that flight isn't worth the effort and decide to take your business elsewhere only to be confronted by the EXACT SAME AGENCY that told you to remove yourself to tell you that you're going to be involved in a civil lawsuit on top of 10k in fines.
and all of that could have been avoided had they simply followed procedure instead of forcing their will on you with an ultimatum that results in being barred from the flight, getting felt up by someone you don't know, or being told you either let them touch you, see you, or take you to court even if you avoid the system all together. entirely on the principle that the safety of many comes at the sacrifice of the rights of few. 80 out of the hundred people on your flight got to simply waltz through the scanner and now you're not on your plane and you could see a lot of trouble in the future.
if you STILL don't see the issue in this situation you need to seriously reevaluate your ability to exercise your rights, lest the abuse you accept because it's "how things work" extends beyond the TSA line and into your living room with your husband johnny "beatshiswife" fowler and his anger at your inability to get him a budweiser before the wheel comes on.
yeah domestic abuse is quite a stretch, however sometimes it takes an extreme to make a point, what i'm trying to say is you have rights, use them or get walked on. you have the right to refuse the process without interrupting it. if you remain peaceful they should also. that's not even something that needs to be said. if you allow something as stupid as the TSA to be aggressive because they tell you it's safer where will it end?
Person 2: [Person 1 (Name redacted)], there are always special cases. In all fairness though, the woman was safer because of the x-ray. What if the next man in line had a knife that they didn't find by normal means and held her in the bathroom at knife point and raped her? Honestly these are trained professionals. These people who work security have to pass the same, if not stricter, background check that I had to in order to work at the shelter.
I don't think the intent is so that perverts can get jobs in air ports and look at blue-ish black-ish x-ray porn. This is a preventative measure so that we don't have to go through things like stripping down or getting cavity searches.
Person 1:
1) There are medical concerns, and I have a serious problem with them as well.
2) Just because you're okay with being viewed through this machine does NOT mean that everyone should be subjected to it... Just because you don't [feel violated] doesn't mean others shouldn't. If you were coerced to have sex with a guy while drunk at a frat party and didn't feel terrible about it the next morning, that wouldn't mean no one else should be allowed to feel that way. What I'm saying is that it's invasive, and the airline should not be allowed to exceed the standards of someone's personal physical or psychological comfort, regardless of whether you personally feel fine with it or not.
3) Because they're private corporations, there is all the MORE reason they should not be allowed to do this. The argument that this man made about not being searched by a law enforcement officer was valid. Police cannot do a body search of you without arresting your first or reasonable cause to believe they are in imminent and immediate danger. Civilian corporations have no right to subject you to a body search at all. If we allow this, we need to allow Target to do these kinds of procedures when you walk into their store to make sure you're not going to hold up the cashier or blow up the building, too. Extending these privileges to non-government entities to violate the privacy and dignity of The People is a slippery slope that we don't want to walk down, even though we already are -- and quickly.
My response, now that the gist of the comments has been posted:
- If a guy sneaks a gun on a plane and tries to terrorize those on board, you can bet that the passengers won't sit idly by - not after 9/11, especially. I will be the first person shot in the course of subduing the ***hole if I'm on such a plane if that's what it ****ing takes. The best security is a group of aware and empowered passengers, not a bunch of government loafers left behind at the terminal.
- If there were issues other than government command and control (e.g., true security) at stake, airlines would be free to have their own security measures in place and passengers would get to choose which airline they wanted to use based on which one had the best, or most effective, or least intrusive, etc, security. Instead, what I'm being told is that all of this is necessary so that someone can't sneak in an underwear bomb. What's ironic is that the underwear bomber would not necessarily have been subject to a US-style security check anyway given that he was flying from Holland. What's even stranger is that he was reportedly allowed - nay, escorted - on to the plane without even a passport. http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2009/12/flight_253_passenger_says_at_l.html
That said, private corporations absolutely SHOULD be allowed to do this - if their passengers explicitly consent to such measures. No private corporation would choose to do such a thing were it not mandated by the federal government. The majority of their potential passengers would be outraged, and rightly so. This is not an issue of decency. It is an issue of consent and control.
- As if I even needed to mention it given that it has no teeth any more: 4th Amendment
- Why would we trust the same people (the fed gov't) who brought us the Iraq War to keep us safe from terrorists? To illustrate my point, let's just say I intimately know someone who accidentally sneaked a 3" blade in his/her carry-on luggage on to an aircraft several years after 9/11.
- Just because the government thinks something should be illegal doesn't mean it should be. See: sodomy, interracial marriage, DHEA (a potentially beneficial hormone precursor that was nearly banned because some jackass incorrectly thought it should be considered a steroid), driving without a seatbelt, a drinking age under 21, marijuana, etc. ad nauseum. The point of the last statement is that sometimes there are legitimate reasons to hide things, due not to moral, safety, or ethical issues but due solely to government capriciousness.
- As a last comment directed at Person 2's statement: doctors are given explicit (or at the least, strongly implied) consent by their patients to access their patients' bodies, images of their body, medical records, etc. It's part of the social contract involved with seeing a doctor. Hence, analogy fail. It's not about the action, it's about the consent.
Consent is a fundamental human right. Otherwise it's rape.
