- Ready for his pat down. Image via Wikipedia
Some people have proposed protesting the TSA body scans and pats by refusing the body scan and electing for the full body pat down in public view. Presumably the goals are to call attention to the humiliating nature of the procedures and to slow down travel, thus making people angry.
Like Thoreau and King, I do think that civil disobedience and its relatives are legitimate and often morally commendable means of protest. However, the protests should be calculated to win public support and focus the outrage of the public on the target of the protests rather than on the protesters.
As I write this, the protest is planned for the day before Thanksgiving-a rather busy travel day. While this will provide the protesters with a large audience, the members of this audience (their fellow passengers) will most likely be more concerned about getting to grandma’s house than with the injustice of the scans. I suspect that more people will be angered at the protesters slowing down the process than at the government for implementing such invasive and unwarranted procedures. However, I could be mistaken-perhaps there will be a groundswell of support for the protesters and this will be known as the Pre-Thanksgiving Miracle Protest of 2010.
This is a matter of legitimate concern. After all, a protester has an obligation to consider the impact of his/her protest on others. If this impact is morally unacceptable, then the protest should not take place. If it is, then the protest would be (obviously) acceptable. In the case of the travel protest, there is the legitimate concern that the protest might significantly slow down travel. At the very least, the TSA will probably need to put more people on pat down and this will mean fewer people to handle the other tasks. Also, as with any protest, there is the possibility that things might go wrong. Perhaps a tired and annoyed TSA agent will slip and give a fellow a full groin grope, leading to a punch to the face (which would not be unreasonable-touching another man’s junk without permission is a punchable offense) which would probably be followed by an exciting security lock down. Or perhaps an angry passenger will start something. Or maybe everything will go smoothly. In any case, the protesters need to consider what effect their actions will have on others.
I happened to be thinking about this while running and my running attire (shirtless and short shorts) gave me an idea for another type of protest: men going through security in Speedos and women going through in bikinis. I assume that TSA would still have to pat such almost naked people down-after all, bureaucracy is really big on mindlessly following rules.
Yesterday I was told by a woman whose husband works for the TSA that the TSA people call the pat downs “hand jobs.”
I don’t see the potential harm in slowing down air travel. Fewer people gathering together to consume unhealthy food en masse? That sounds like a benefit. I suppose that it will be balanced by an increase in cardiac events in the airport, so on the whole, the accidental consequences of the protest may be a wash.
As for the intended results, I’m not sure that a riot would be bad. The government seems a tad deaf these days.
The only one saying the terrorists win if we don’t do something, is Mike. If people decide to do away with this rule, so be it. But Mike’s rhetoric is way over the top for what’s actually happening.
Just remember, Mike’s written exactly 1 (One) post, implicitly stating tha al-Qaeda is evil. One post. But several now on the evils of pat downs.
Mike must really believe that there has been so few terror attacks is because the terrorists just don’t want to do anything bad. Wrong. We’ve killed them and subverted their efforts in more ways than most people know.
Mike always talks about how many deaths on the roads there are. Does he realize how many regulations are in effect on the roads? As a cop I had a whole book called “Title 29”. It was so full of vehicle regulations that I pretty much just chose a handfull to enforce and was able to easily write as many tickets as I wanted. Think of it. You must wear a seat belt when you’re driving your car. You are being protected from yourself. With the pat down, people are being protected from a bomb.
Are people really against this because they just can’t stand a pat down or “on principle”? If it’s on principle, there are tons more regulations that effect people in much worse ways than a patdown before you go on a plane. What about being forced to give urine samples in the Army. I have to stand in a wall toilet while another NCO watches me hold my dick in my hand and take a piss. Please don’t give me “you signed up for it” argument. In that case why don’t you just argue that the Army can do nerve gas tests on me, too.
Hey, if people really don’t want this, fine. Just don’t argue it’s illegal, unprecendented, the Fall of the Republic, the terrorists are winning, etc. Mike’s answer to terrorists is to give them a hug. Find one post he’s ever put up about how we should neutralize them. Their network was growing out of control, regardless of his understatementsl.
Better yet, read the Pulitzer prize winning, The Looming Tower, the best non-fiction book I’ve ever read. Maybe then you’ll see what we’re up against. If Mike’s argument about traffic deaths really held as much water as he hoped, we couldn’t take action on any issue, because it’s unlikely that anything will kill 30-50,000 people a day like car accidents do.
I suspect that that the intelligence reports the authorities are getting are hair-raising, and they are acting in good faith.
I have no problem in principle with security measures, but I would feel far more secure with an Israeli-type system that focused more on people than technology. I would also like to see more dogs at airports (other than the food-sniffing dogs in customs).
I really think we are totally in denial about the nature of Jihad, and the vast number of Jihadists out there. Even a “tiny minority” of a billion Muslims is still a large number.
will kill 30-50,000 people a day like car accidents do.
*A year*
Politico-ideologically speaking if you had no problem with bypassing FISA courts you should have no problem with body pats. Both were just steps in stripping our privacy If one was worth doing after 9/11 the other should be worth doing now. Both claim the same end. Only the means differ. Me–I don’t see feeling me up as any more intrusive than tapping my private phone conversations w/o my knowledge. In fact, I’d rather know exactly when I’m being physically invaded. That way I can enjoy in more.