Posted by Tina
The most obvious and profound statement I’ve read to date on the TSA scanner and pat down uproar is the following from KT McFarland on FOX News:
Why don’t we start profiling for terrorists and stop trying to put everyone from toddlers to granny through the same security procedures at airports? We’re wasting money, time and the people’s patience in an effort to be politically correct. In the end, it’s not keeping us any safer; if anything it’s making us less safe since it’s diverting resources that could otherwise be used on better intelligence gathering, or developing screening devices for cargo on commercial and civilian aircraft, or checking containers before they enter U.S. ports.
Are public buses and trains next? How thrilled are you about the prospect of flying under these new security methods? Do you agree profiling would work better?
“Why don’t we start profiling for terrorists and stop trying to put everyone from toddlers to granny through the same security procedures at airports?”
The answer to this question is pretty much a gimme: Because our Constitution says that all men are created equal.
“We’re wasting money, time and the people’s patience in an effort to be politically correct.”
No, we’re doing it in an attempt to treat people equally under the law, without regard to race. That’s not a wasteful effort, nor is it politically correct. Unless you think that “political correctness” and “equality” are synonyms.
“Do you agree profiling would work better?”
What kind of profiling? None of the 9/11 terrorists, nor the shoe bomber, were dressed in traditional Muslim garb, so profiling people based on that wouldn’t make any sense. The only thing left is to profile based on perceived race or nationality, which is unconstitutional.
The worst terrorist attack on our country couldn’t have been prevented by profiling. If it could have been prevented, it would have been due to our government listening to the intel it had long before 9/11.
This is just wrong. Let’s see what the usual suspects have to say about it.
You make a good point Chris and technically you are right. However, as we’ve seen on many occasions in our history we have found it necessary to preserve the union by suspending certain Constitutional liberties.
If our equal protection clause is being used to advantage terrorists and disadvantage our security then common sense demands we MUST suspend certain aspects of that weakness until we’ve downgraded a dire threat to something less.
Terrorists count on that gentle and high minded way of thinking.
Some people would rather go down defending a loop hole in the Constitution that allows terrorists an easy advantage…but, I wouldn’t.
I would sooner contemplate such noble thoughts as found in the Constitution re liberty and freedom – when the threat to my liberty is dead.
Show me an Al Qaeda soldier sworn to kill infidels (innocent men, women and children) and I will gladly and without remorse, show him the blinding flash from the muzzle of my M4 as .223 bullets traveling at 3400 feet per second tear into his head and internal organs and puffs of pink mist envelope him and turn his filthy night shirt red with his own blood.. And if possible, I want the last thing he hears to be a strong voice yelling, “This is for 9/11 you dirty #@%^&!” That’s my well considered and preferred way of defending America…and I’ll bet that when push comes to shove a lot more people would prefer my not so kind and understanding method over all others.
Why bother debating the specific details when the whole plan is wrong? The primary threat is coming from terrorists flying into the USA from another country, not from US airports. There are no pat-downs, x-rays, or screening at the airports in Yemen or Nigeria or many such places, and there never can be, since the US has no jurisdiction there. However, we do have jurisdiction over what planes are allowed to land at US airports. We should have a couple of TSA searchers and a bomb-sniffing dog on every transcontinental flight and do the checks while the planes are flying over the ocean headed our way.
Chris: “The only thing left is to profile based on perceived race or nationality, which is unconstitutional.”
Let’s see. If this were a completely true statement then police officers all around the country would have to stop asking, “What did the person who robbed you look like?”
And I suppose the person behind the store counter wouldn’t be allowed to say, “He was a white man about six foot with a muscular build and he had a tatoo…a cross on his left shoulder…and he left in a green 1945 Merc”
The officers wouldn’t be able to look for white six foot man with a cross tat in an old car…and they would be unable to do their jobs.
We profile in this country all of the time. Every human does it unconsciously all the time. There are circumstances where it is not only necessary it is imperaitive if you are going to prevent disasters. We are under attack from a particular enemy…of course we should be profiling. It has nothing to do with “traditional garb” either.
If were going to profile the perfect model can be found in Israel. Hot air describes the method briefly:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/04/video-how-does-israel-protect-air-travel/
Ill be posting the WSJ video on the Hot Air blog to PS shortly.
That’s a ridiculous comparison, Tina. Surely you can see the difference between trying to find a specific wanted criminal based on a physical description, and suspecting that a person might be planning to commit a crime because he happens to be of a certain race.
I don’t get you guys. When it comes to things like taxes on the rich, you claim to be constitutional purists. But when it comes to things like profiling, wiretapping, and lack of due process you guys are willing to throw the whole thing out.
Soaps is right; profiling people at airports won’t help anyway.
Tina/Jack, we are in agreement on this one. Back in the seventies, when I worked at an olive processing plant out in Orland, occasionally the boarder patrol would make a raid on the plant. They never asked us white guys to see our ID’s. They only went after the Mexicans. Why? Because it made sense!
Chris: “Surely you can see the difference between trying to find a specific wanted criminal based on a physical description, and suspecting that a person might be planning to commit a crime because he happens to be of a certain race.”
On the other hand you make your case based solely on an assumption of racism.
On the one hand we have a profile of the enemy that wishes to blow people up including a record of them using airplanes to accomplish their goal in spectacular fashion. On the other hand you have zero evidence that anyone working for TSA would be motivated by racism.
So who is it that approaches this from a bigoted perspective? I’m sorry Chris, but those who always concern themselves with race appear to be more racist to me than do people who are merely doing what makes sense to keep all of us safe regardless of race. After all the people at TSA are doing their job to keep Muslims who fly, or who might be in the wrong building at the wrong time safe also. Surely they are smart enough to realize this and probably would if we didn’t have the PC police running around doing the OMG thing all the time.
“…you guys are willing to throw the whole thing out.”
Oh come on Chris…the whole thing?
Let’s look at another perspective. Muslims living in this country, either Americans or those here as guests on visa, have the opportunity to create a positive impression for the Muslim world. They could take the position that whatever they can do to help the US ensure safety on these planes, including going through extra scrutiny at airports, would be appreciated. It would give them a way to make a contribution. I would bet you that there are those who do feel this way about it. many have come from countries where the brutality of the leadership is so great that this inconvenience is nothing by comparison. Some wonder what is wrong with people that can’t get the obvious.
Profiling has assisted Israel in achieving a perfect airline record to date.
Soaps isn’t wrong and I agree his solutions make a lot of sense also.
That went pretty much the way I figured it would.
TSA gives a choice we will scan you or feel you all over your body, Some choice! I guess we can choose to drive or where possible take a train but then terorists can be there too.
It is my understanding that the cargo is not scanned, isn’t that defeating the purpose?
I posted somewhere else as to why are the pilots scanned or groped? They are piloting the plane which can be the weapon if that is their desire.
Muslim women may be exempt, Homeland Security is debating that idea.
Good points all Harriet. I read this morning that several southern airlines are considering firing the TSA in favor of private screeners because they can more easily fire those who are disrespectful or abuse the passengers. Since TSA employees are about to go union it’s probably a wise move.
You notice the ACLU hasn’t been heard from about this. I am sure when people start asking questions about who the people are that work for TSA the ACLU will speak up and tell us we have no right to know anything about their work histories or their criminal histories or their mental fitness for the jobs they have.
Isn’t the date rape by TSA employees something the ACLU would normally have kittens over? What has changed?
Good points Toby…
In response to your question, because we have an “O” with a “D” after his name in the White House?