When it comes to national security, I’ve always been one of those gals who believes in safety first.
That means I don’t believe that the government should be telling us every single detail about its operations overseas, since doing so alerts our enemies about exactly what we’re up to.
I remember one typical media persona becoming obviously peeved when nobody would tell him where the president was being shuttled off to on 9/11. Why? What good would that have done the American people to know? Possibly even more importantly, what good would that have done for our enemies?
I’ve also never objected to the idea of TSA agents going through my luggage at the airport. Just as long as they don’t break or lose anything, I could really care less. I’m willing to sacrifice a bit in order to maintain the security of myself and my fellow passengers.
Likewise, I’m all for profiling. Sorry, but with international terrorists predominantly sharing certain physical traits, I say use common sense and regard a Muslim male with more suspicion than a tiny, little white girl.
With that said, if tiny, little white girls start trying to blow things up on a regular basis, than by all means, go ahead and pull me out of line to ask me extra questions and search my luggage.
And even if there is no precedent, common sense should still prevail. If a tiny, little white girl is acting suspiciously, then, again, pull her aside.
I didn’t even really object to the new, full body scanners when they were first announced. I didn’t discount other people’s negative opinions about the controversial device – including my best friend’s, which came backed with a nursing degree – but I just didn’t share their loathing.
In all honesty, perhaps I was looking at the matter selfishly: Because I didn’t have a personal problem with it, I didn’t think to defend it.
In that case, I apologize. And if you’re one of those people that has been against the invasion of privacy from the start, then you may or may not get some satisfaction out of me admitting that I’ve come around to thinking the whole thing is pretty heinous.
Why? Because of what they do to you if you do opt out.
Dissent at Your own Risk
Think they’ll pull you to the side and, in front of everybody, make you spread your arms and legs while they wave that wand up and down your personal space?
That, I can tolerate and even condone. Sure, my face usually goes a bit red when that happens, but it’s a small inconvenience. And regardless, that’s not what they do if you say no to their “request.”
They don’t even pat you down the PC way, with the backs of their hands and avoiding any sensitive areas. Instead, they grab you all over.
The man in the blog I just linked to is hardly the only person to have complained about rough and inappropriate handling. Women and children have been subject to the same overly-thorough and inappropriate treatment.
I can understand why somebody wouldn’t want airport agents to see their barely blurred naked form as they pass through the new scanners. Those people probably aren’t anymore thrilled at the TSA’s admission that they keep many of the pictures… or the fact that airport personnel can and allegedly have printed the pictures out and distributed them before.
I can also understand why people would be concerned about the possible cancer-causing radiation the devices may very well exude.
Those are two perfectly legitimate objections. And I hardly think that they warrant molestation as a punishment.
It’s rather sad when in order to be physically “protected,” we have to submit to emotional and sexual abuse.
Thanks Janet Napolitano. For nothing.
As Art Carden writes in Forbes, your security is a joke… a really, really bad one.