I recently watched a news program explaining the TSA's new technology to scan people through security checkpoints at airports. It is a x-ray machine, that sees through your clothing, and scans every inch of your body from head to toe. A person of course is watching the monitor of the output of the x-ray machine to make sure there is no weapon on you, meaning this person can see you and your "full glory." If you opt not to be undressed by this machines eyes, you can get a "full pat down search" which means a TSA Officer will put on 2 clean blue rubber gloves, and use the outside of his hands to search every crevice of your body. Personally, I see it as 2 options, let a stranger see you naked, or get felt up by a stranger.
Let me begin this by saying that this is clearly a violation of our 4th Amendment. The 4th Amendment guards against "unreasonable searches and seizures." I find it very difficult to support the fact that I must be sexually harassed before I get on an airplane. The only reason this ISN'T sexual harassment is because it's the government. If they weren't the government, of course it'd be sexual harassment! It's an invasion of civil liberties, and it's unethical.
They (NBC News) also stated that they (the TSA) actually store these images. One reporter even said that they found over 300,000 images of innocent, unarmed, law-abiding citizens in a courtroom in Orlando. All of these photos we're taken from the new TSA x-ray scanners in an Orlando airport.
Terrifyingly enough, these x-ray machines have been deemed hazardous by several officials from radiation poisoning. On top of that, these scanners are 300 times more likely to aid cancer then the government originally thought of.
I posted this to my Facebook to see what others thought of the matter, and a friend of mine said that:
"We are evolving into an era where the measures to prevent terrorism are necessary" To that I say that 9/11 was ONE incident, and can not be used to dictate whether or not we're breaking into an area of safety. The reason we have this and things like the Patriot Act is a massive over-reaction to 9/11, they invade our 4th Amendment rights, our civil liberties, and this case, my penis.
He then asked me if Iwas "going to be the one that will go up to the 2000 families that lost someone in the 9/11 incident and tell them that we're not going to check for dangerous people in airports because of 4th amendment rights?" To which I said "This nation was found upon those rights, and they're taking our Founding Fathers names in vain when the don't."
He then proceeded to question that ""It's obvious that the founding fathers weren't thinking about airport security when they amended the constitution." and I totally agree with him! They were thinking of moral responsibility and interest in human ethics in general, not airplanes.
You wouldn't be okay if every time you entered a building, they patted you down, or x-rayed you so they could see everything. Imagine every time you enter ANY building, they either x-ray you fully, or touch your junk.
The point is that this violates the very pillars that support this nation. As does the Patriot Act, but I digress. The new TSA screening methods invade civil liberties, and civilians pants. This unethical response to terrorism is disgusting, and hypocritical to traditional american values. Our nation clearly over reacts at one poor choice that a few radicals made 10 years ago. Why punish every US constituent for it? Please comment below with your opinions. Whether for or against, I value your input dearly, for it educates us all and let's us grow as both people, and as a nation. Thank you!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree, but I am going to take a different stantce since this is what this website is all about...
ReplyDeleteI feel that there should be a way that airline companies should be able to privatize their security. Imagine a country where airline countries are competeing for customers by upping eachothers security system. That would mean that, if a certain person doesn't like American Airlines security system, they can just fly Southwest, or Delta, or whatever. Nothing wrong with a little friendly competition.
Judge Andrew Napolitano, believes that if the 2nd Amendment were enforced, then many terrorist attacks wouldn't happen. In theory, I think he is right. Imagine, if the terrorists who hijacked the planes on 9/11 said, "Nobody move, I am hijacking this plane," and as he made a move to the cockpit 50 some-odd guns got pulled on him, I think he might reconsider. If United Flight 93 had passengers with guns, imagine what would have happened, 44 lives could have been saved.
Anyway, those are just two solutions, I am interested to hear others.
P.s. El Al Airlines is a testament to what airline security can be...we should learn from those guys over in Israel.
ReplyDeleteJake, touchy subject. The thing is security protocol requires everyone in the airport to go through one security gate before entering terminals or Starbucks. If there was "friendly competition" like you said, actual terrorists would probably target the airline That didn't search as much. If the 2nd amendment was legalized, that would cause more problems. I'm sure none of us want a reenactment of "Mile High Club" from Call of Duty happening on planes. Because some people are irresponsible with weapons, it destroys a passenger's ability to use them. But then again I kind of see this spinning around back into the security measures... Maybe just a pilot should have access to weapons... Maybe security checks should be more courteous. We just need to find better ways.
ReplyDeleteHey if you guys don't mind could you tell me what you think about my article? Thanks
ReplyDeletePerhaps your method of describing this supposed "violation" of the 4th amendment is rather harsh, to say the least. Not to mention your religious background could also be shown as having a bias towards your belief. That being said, I need to play the devil's advocate on this issue in that without airline security being as tight as it is now, then people would begin to question to the government. I would wonder why the government would disregard the attack of 9/11. Hence, a "big deal" over the subject is necessary to both gain the respect and confidence of the people and to protect the individual liberty of the people.
ReplyDeleteI was thinking about this today. Understand that one single incident can ruin things for everyone. A single abuse can forfeit a privilege. I was thinking about the new security features and for valid reasons, I think it is necessary now. Sometimes it's necessary to refine/ edit laws/rules for the better of the populace. I read about his on CNN, and a reader commented: "Getting pat down sure beats a plane exploding in mid-air" and his point is valid. Sometimes security measures need to be upped for safety, and poll shows over 80% of people support it. I understand where you are coming from, but sometimes things need to be changed. Besides, if this new security check was withdrawn and a terrorist attack did happen, the citizens would blame TSA for not having the security measures. I don't want to get felt up by somebody or seen naked by a guy behind a computer, but I don't want others to be put in harms way because of my refusal to follow security protocol...
ReplyDeleteYou write that the Constitution bars unreasonable search and seizures, but the Constitutions also tasks the federal government with "providing for the common defense" of the citizens of our country. If these scanners are being used to help our national security, then they are not unreasonable searches at all and they benefit the safety and security of United States citizens. There is already an exemption of the 4th amendment known as the Border search exemption (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception) and it exempts border enforcement agencies such as the TSA from needing a warrant to search a traveler. Since there is a real need for these machines and they help United States security, the TSA does not violate the 4th amendment.
ReplyDeleteI think I can finish my commenting spree with this, but first let me apologizing for flying off the handle at first and being a little unsure.
ReplyDeleteNaturally, it is inevitable for things to advance, and unfortunately with the advances of weapons, comes the advancement of security measures. But I was thinking about this today, the TSA is basically producing pornography of the people it "checks".
As far as we know there is basically no other way to check people for weapons that can't be detected by X-rays and metal detectors. However, when the security measures go as far as to basically take naked pictures of people or feel up people, it just seems wrong to me, especially when it comes to children. I don't want to over-exaggerate, but If I had a son or a daughter, I wouldn't want some stranger feeling them up or taking a naked picture of them. Mainly because I don't want to put my "children" in a position where they think people "are checking them for weapons" when they touch them inappropriately. And next to that I have no idea where all of those naked pictures go, I mean, they go to the government, but honestly, how many people want to have naked pictures of their family go through the entire government. It just seems wrong to me.
Until we find better ways to check people for weapons, I am sadly going to have to avoid commercial airlines until then, It seems as if that's the only solution for now.
this is true ,that certain measures go to far,only because they are unnecessary.we need certain safety precautions especially since there are still hijackers/bombers.It is beyond stupid for three reasons.1) bomb sniffing dogs are shown to be the most effective.2) the technology is already behind ,these terrorists are innovative they are going to put bombs in their organs and scans cant detect them.3) a lot of it comes down to intelligence agencies sharing information and profiling not racially put based on certain characteristics.
ReplyDeleteplus i don't want nobody touching my junk!
why is it hilariously hypocritical?