Of what do I speak of? Of the right to privacy. Of the right and duty to our children. Of the right and duty to protect our families and loved ones. Of the right to free expression and protest. Of the right to due process and to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. Does anyone doubt that the TSA's little show of authority is not violating these very rights and duties?
Some naively say that we must give away those rights to be secure. But I ask, secure in what? And if this is the case, what are those Constitutionally-recognized rights useful for if the same case can always be argued? After all, the world is a big, scary place and we all need security. The truth is, nobody can offer us full security. And there are trade-offs to be made in a free society. This is a point lots of people have problems with.
Degrees of Liberty
We cannot expect to be 100% secure against terrorists and have our rights left in-tact. Something has to give. We either accept the inherent insecurity of being free, or we trade that freedom for security, an ironic trade-off considering freedom is what we were originally looking for. Does this mean we may not have any security if we are to be free? Of course not. This is where it gets tricky.
People like depict the issue of governance as something ideologically pure, black or white. But the truth is that it is very much a matter or degrees and balance. And government is not something that exists in a vacuum, in isolation from everything else. Governments naturally come from societies (not the other way around) and must respect and respond to those societies and cultural norms, fluid and ever-changing, especially in today's small world.
I cannot argue for other societies and cultures. I can only argue for my own. For example, I find the wearing of burqas to be both a sign of repression (though self-imposed in a free society) and a possible security issue, as it gives wearers more anonymity. In my culture you show your face when you're out and about in the world. Obviously the French government sees burqas as a threat.
However, I find the CCTV cameras in stores, on street lights and in public areas rather concerning, as it tips the balance the other way- especially given today's networking capabilities. The potential for abuse is huge. An individual can be tracked throughout the city on his or her daily route. Tracking government-imposed GPS devices in cars, financial transactions and online activity and putting it all together only compound the issue further. And those carrying out this invasive tracking often do so with little accountability and practically full anonymity.
These are some examples. I do not mean to suggest that there are no cases where camera surveillance should be used. Certainly, there are, but only in limited cases, in my view. And I do not mean to suggest that Muslim women have no right to wear burqas. As a Cuban-American I am sensitive to others' cultural values, and I can understand how shocking and violating it may be to some women who practice this custom to be forced to abandon it based on the biases of the culture she is now in. In fact, I disagree with the French law.
What I am trying to do is establish that the specifics of what is construed as the right balance in security vs. freedom is relative, based on many factors, including culture and even biology. Indeed, had we descended from the canine family, perhaps posterior sniffing would be an accepted and encouraged social norm.
Relative but Fundamental
These are all relative norms, some more than others. But the fundamental framework is the same: Respect and reasonable security. Human beings have always had ways to keep each other in check, even without big government. At the informal level, social pressure keeps most from blatantly violating others rights and physical threats keep most from being security risks. If an individual were to steal a woman's purse in public, said thief would face immediate persecution and physical threats. The consequences worsen with the severity of the crime.
Respect in its most primitive form is simply an often unspoken contract between people to allow each other the freedom to pursue their life goals and do as they please without stepping on each others' toes. This is the golden rule. "Do unto others and you wish to be done onto you." The idea is that you treat others a certain way with the understanding that others will treat you in like manner. A more advanced interpretation will consider that this should be the case even when you are in a dominant position, in no immediate danger of being threatened. Here then, it is no longer a simple matter or survival, but an advanced sense of morality with a consideration for the greater good. Out of this springs the concept of liberties, such freedom of expression and religion.
So while we may argue what the balance between liberty and security, and the cultural norms that surround those, there is no doubt that human beings have a fundamental right to liberties and that our governments must not be disproportionately tipped towards "security", as this effectively negates the purpose of "security" in the first place, which is to allow us our liberties.
Touchy Subjects
Now, I talked about primordial rights and duties. Why did I phrase it this way? Duties and rights go hand in hand. Often they are one in the same. And I believe the Transportation Security Administration has crossed not only a legal boundary, but that line that crosses our very nature as individuals and our duties as mothers and fathers. The right to our persons, to not be touched by others, not to mention groped, is a fundamental one. A child recognized this when he forcefully exclaims "Stop touching me!"
Some cultures are more touch-friendly than others. As a Cuban, that is obvious when dealing with my other American and Asian friends. But in no culture is touching and groping acceptable when it is not welcome from the individual. Surely, touching and hugging is something I welcome from my family and close friends. Groping is something I welcome in intimate settings from close lady friends. But it is not a casual affair and it is not a privilege I give out easily, or worse, that others are free to take. And just because I am a male does not mean I am less entitled not to be touched, though obviously females have more areas considered "intimate" and "off limits" than males.
Some argue that considering the security threat, we waive this basic right away. Again, then what good is it to call this a "right"? We might as well call this a "wish" or perhaps more aptly a "dream" than a "right". And where is the balance? Am I saying that there is NO case where people can be "patted down"? Certainly not. If there is good reason to suspect an individual is truly carrying a weapon with intent, then it may be an option. But this must be an orderly, lawful process, and done in a case-by-case manner, in the most respectful way possible, not as a wholesale practice in the very rude manner so many travelers have encountered.
And individuals should be offered the opportunity to simply leave without facing a fine for opting out of an invasive procedure, unless they have demonstrated to be a threat, substantiated by some evidence. Unfortunately, people are being told they will be fined, or that they simply do not have a right to opt-out. To call this heavy-handed is an understatement. If an individual clearly has an M-16 rifle sticking out of his pants, this would be reason to detain and further inspect said individual. A unsubstantiated suspicion and a request to opt-out of a flight altogether should not be construed as threatening.
Groping Gripes
This is my view on a regular pat down. Current-style "gropings" are another matter altogether. These go beyond touching. Whatever the intent, they are invasive and can legitimately be considered sexual assaults. I simply do not see a need for such gropings. If an individual is considered so suspicious and threatening as to necessitate this aggressive of a search, due process must be invoked and rights read. Otherwise, how is this not unreasonable search and (possible) seizure?
It is a tragedy that so many of us have so readily accepted being treated like criminals without there being one shred of evidence or legitimate suspicion against us. The members of our society who are particularly vulnerable- children, the elderly, and those with medical and psychological conditions are most affected. Already we have heard stories of TSA agents callously pointing out and removing prosthesis. And although the TSA insists that is not their policy, really what else could an invasive groping session end up in? That notwithstanding, merely the experience of going through a groping session is traumatic to any person, but even more so for children and those who have been sexually molested.
The right not to be touched in this manner is fundamental and primordial. We should not, under any circumstance, automatically "give away" this right. The ironic thing is, and one which I really have not dealt with in this article, is that this does not really make us significantly "safer" in any way. But even if it did, the trade-off is not worthwhile, nor is it reasonable to subject everybody and anybody to such a disgusting experience.
But what about the right to our children? Every free state recognizes the rights of parents over their children. Children are not to be subjected to the whims of the state. This is as much a right as a duty. Parents have a primordial duty to protect their children. And this is more powerful than any law or government. Whoever does not recognize the right and duty of a father or a mother to his or her child does not recognize humanity. But the TSA has already taken a child away from his mother. You can threaten a parent with fines, imprisonment, torture or death, but no law is above a parents duty to her child. That is a primordial duty and right. And when a government does nothing to protect this right/duty, and even encourages such a violation, it has become an oppressor.
Scandalous Scans
But all this can be avoided, some say. Just go through the body scan! Well, the fact is even those who go through the scanner must still submit to a groping session. Nonetheless, let us consider the "option" of the these appropriately nicknames "porno" scanners. It's quite simple. It is a violation of privacy. Ever since humans have worn clothing, it has been considered a matter of personal right and dignity to not be exposed to the world.
You're just a prude!, you may contend. Quite the contrary. I think people are far too hung up on what they perceive as physical imperfections, which might as well be called "natural" and I think showing a little skin is not a bad thing. I think nude beaches are a great thing, and I think its a shame communal baths are disappearing in Japan and elsewhere. I think we become more distant from each other the more obstacles we put between us. But like physical intimacy, this must be a choice.
The scans are virtual strip searches, with clear exposure of the genitals and body features. Some people may not have a problem with this. However, it should still be a choice. The TSA knew people would have an issue with others having access to such a photo. That is why they initially said the machines were not capable of storing photos, but of course, they are, and such nude photos of many people have already been stored. If that isn't blatant lying, I don't know what is.
Although my aim is to approach these subjects from the perspective of what I have termed "primordial right and duties" (which you can feel free to replace with "inalienable rights", a term just as appropriate), it would be remiss for me say that both the body scans and groping sessions become all the more senseless when you take into consideration that the body scans cannot penetrate the body cavity, a good hiding place for explosives. Are passengers to endure cavity searches then? I would not think it out of the question in the direction we are going. More importantly, neither would have stopped the 9/11 terrorists.
When you factor in the possible health consequences of the radiation these machines emit, then the use of these machines becomes clearly unjustifiable. Then you factor in the cost of these unproven machines, it all just seems insane, unless the aim is really profit-driven in the end, which seems to be the case.
The End?
I don't condone insulting TSA agents or anyone else, for that matter. But I can understand why someone would insult a TSA agent after a traumatic experience, like this woman did (under her breath). It is in essence, a cathartic experience, venting, if you will. And most importantly, I understand the right to free speech, and that we are entitled to free speech even if it isn't nice. The TSA agent could have easily ignored and dismissed the comment. But instead, she proceeded to enact revenge upon this woman.
It is exactly what somebody drunk with power, with little accountability would do. And this is the same type of attitude too many of these agents seem to have when it comes to any kind of questioning, disagreement or even a wrong look. This is wrong. We should be free to question authority and we should not be at the mercy of the whims of some agent. Isn't that what it means to live in a Constitutional democracy?
I have no doubt that all this is at least partly motivated by profits. That is nothing new. But the most disconcerting thing is the dramatic shift that has taken place in how our government treats ordinary, law-abiding citizens. We are supposed to accept that we simply give away our rights when we fly. And there is nothing stopping the government from expanding and implementing this kind of thing at bus terminals, sea ports and even at random traffic checkpoints, all in the name of security. It's not as if it hasn't happened in some places.
Senator Ron Paul said it best- to paraphrase- we have become accustomed to be taken care of, to be fed, and to be fattened up. And now we will be eaten. Will you be a delicious cattle for those who would violate our most primordial rights and duties? Consider your responsibilities to yourself and to all of us.
