Ever since September 11, 2001, America has been embroiled in an internal debate about democracy: When is it appropriate to sacrifice certain rights for safety?
Wiretapping, detaining foreigners and citizens alike, and fewer restrictions on the issuing of warrants are all examples of questionable infringements on the rights of citizens for the purpose of protection.
When does the negativity of the invasiveness outweigh the safety it provides? When does protecting people threaten to destroy the freedom of our nation?
Probably in many circumstances. But the Transport Security Administration’s body scanners at airports are not one of them.
A government agency using a machine to take X-ray photos of people might cause George Orwell and Aldous Huxley to role over in their graves.
But there are several aspects of the body scanners that make them slightly less dystopiate than many would like them to be.
I wrote a piece for the Emerald’s “Thumbs” section last week about the body scanners. A graduate teaching fellow at the University responded with a letter to the editor. I regret the thumb, because the issue requires a more thorough investigation than a couple hundred words.
The main thrust of the letter was a “slippery slope” argument. “The argument against the full body scans and the new, ‘enhanced’ pat-down is about saying, ‘This is my line,’” the author said. “There is more at stake than flying.”
It may indeed come down, fundamentally, to a difference of opinion; namely, that of where an individual “draws the line.”
Consider first that the body scanners are used at airports. If the body scanners were being employed at entrances to buildings at the University, OK. But they aren’t. Yes, one might believe that if the TSA is allowed to use the scanners at airports, they could possibly be used at other places of transportation: train stations, bus stations, subways. But airports pose the greatest threat of possible danger. Terrorist organizations do not possess missiles. With airplanes they have the ability to strike anywhere in the world. Trains are relegated to tracks, as are subways. Buses possess more freedom, but they are still relegated to roads. Because of an airplane’s ability to travel anywhere, and because of their destructive capabilities, body scanners at airports are not absurd. They are necessary. If even one terrorist is caught because of the body scanners, then I believe the ends justify the means.
There is the issue of the scanners themselves and the images they provide. The TSA has uploaded images created by the scanners in “test cases” onto the web (you can see some here: http://bit.ly/8tgkaT). The images are not pictures of individuals with their clothes off. They are similar to X-ray images, where the general outlines of the individual are present, but the pictures are hardly what people are making them out to be; i.e., that you are walking around naked.
The images the scanners create do not cross “my line.” They are vague, blurry and largely without detail. But they can detect objects on people that could pose a danger. It would be wonderful if scanners were not used at all and TSA employees could simply know which individuals posed a danger. But this is impossible.
Which leads to my final point: that the scanners do not racially profile.
Consider that the TSA’s mission, to protect transportation in our nation, is a monumental task. The scanners make their job easier in many ways, namely in their speed and their efficiency. Furthermore, everyone is subjected to the scanners. I think a lot of the frustration stemming from the scanners is from white people who, while they might not like to admit it, are deeply shocked that they are being subjected to this kind of treatment. White people don’t hijack planes and ram them into
buildings. Why should they have to be subjugated as such?
I believe that people are concerned about their rights, but I also think there is more beneath the surface.
The issue with a slippery slope argument is that it can be applied to almost any circumstance. Yes, if we allow some invasions of privacy now, further invasions may be present in the future. But this does not mean it has to happen, and even if it does happen, it doesn’t necessarily represent a causal relationship. When people become fed up in our democracy, they have the ability to change things. Some individuals were calling for people to boycott the body scanners over Thanksgiving and force the TSA to subjugate people to pat-down procedures. That call was largely ignored.
Perhaps I am a bad citizen of a democracy because, in this case, I do not find the government’s infringement on my Fourth Amendment rights to be unjustified. Perhaps it is people like me who threaten democracy for everyone. Or, perhaps, like the millions of people who ignored the boycotts, I think that in this case the body scanners provide an added measure of security with little interference in my life.
In the dangerous times we live, perhaps the ends justify the means.
[email protected]