Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Can I Have a Look in Your Bag, Please?

The local discussional anthill was kicked over yesterday when this article appeared on the front page of The Washington Post: Metro to Randomly Search Riders' Bags. The searches were a topic of huge and intense discussion in blogs, e-mails, offices, and (not surprisingly) Metro trains and buses; everyone has an opinion either for or against, and no one that I read or ran across seems to have been neutral or indifferent.

As with discussion of most major issues nowadays, the arguments tended to polarize around two extremes. Zipcode, with her background in law enforcement, was on one side of the argument, and her blog post on the topic featured photos of the Madrid railway bombings as an example of what could happen if the police don't have the authority to randomly search bags. On the other side was blogger Shannon, whose post on the topic was titled Say 'So Long' to Your Civil Liberties?

Who's right?

Well, as usual, there are good and legitimate arguments to be made for and against. Shannon's fear for the loss of her civil liberties is not unreasonable, given the current administration's reckless disregard for the Constitution in favor of increasing, centralized presidential powers. The so-called "warrentless wiretap" issue is a prime example: instead of going to Congress and explaining why existing powers were insufficient to deal with a perceived threat, the administration simply bulled ahead on its own authority and - in violation of every rule of common sense - shot itself in its legal, moral, and ethical feet (okay, Mr Bush only has two feet, gimme some license, here). Shannon's recurring point is that she hasn't broken any laws, and so shouldn't have to submit to random searches. She laments, "That's not the America I grew up with."

Zipcode's argument, which is equally compelling, is that random bag searches are a minimalist security measure and a necessary evil in a dangerous world. I can agree with this. While Shannon is correct that this isn't the America we all grew up with, neither is the rest of the world. For whatever reason, there are people out there who don't like Americans and would just as soon see us dead in large numbers. At a time when there are utterly fanatical people who believe God has given them the authority and responsibility to murder infidels, or that their political beliefs are so compelling that murder is a justifiable tactic, I tend to be a bit more concerned about my safety than I am in the face of "ordinary" threats like muggers, venal Congressmen, and greedy bankers.

So...

We need to take some measures to prevent - or at least, minimize the chance of - murderous attacks. Almost every blog post I read or interview on the topic I heard yesterday that was opposed to the searches focused on one of two arguments:

First is the "I'm innocent and my rights are being violated" argument. Well, yes, chances are you are innocent. Shannon is unlikely to want to kill me because I'm non-religious, or Caucasian, or have gray hair, or am right-handed. But a simple look at the world around us shows that there are others who would want to kill me for any of those reasons, or others.

The other is the "Random searches don't work, this is a stupid idea, my commuting is already hosed up and this will make it worse" argument. Well, random searches aren't a perfect remedy. If you randomly search every 17th person and the 18th one is the one with the suicide vest, was the search useless? Even a 100% search will miss some things (look at the periodic exposes of the things reporters manage to sneak past airport security in search of a story). In my view, random searches are, in fact, a waste of time except insofar as they may deter an amateur, not-totally-committed-to-the-cause attacker. You can't say it in the politically correct America of 2008, but if we're going to search people, we need to do it scientifically...and this means in line with established profiles of the sort of people whose looks and actions indicate that they are more likely to be a threat. Searching gray-haired Granny from Peoria is pretty much a waste of time when we already know that a bearded fellow who looks nervous and is wearing baggy clothes unsuited to the weather is more likely to pose a threat.

So if you oppose random searches, what's your alternative? Do you have a better suggestion?

We have become prisoners of our desire to have it both ways. We want security, but are unwilling to endorse the measures which will help ensure it. We cherish our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights, but are reluctant to admit that those rights can be abused by those who believe in their right and duty to kill us. We're Americans...we believe there's some technological fix to the problem that will let us keep all our traditional freedoms while fingering only the bad guys.

It won't happen.

I believe that we can, in fact, have it both ways if we are willing to look at the problem rationally. If we can admit there's a problem (and that's perhaps the hardest part for Joe the Plumber to acknowledge), and then engage in a rational discussion of the measures we can take within the context of the Constitution, we can probably find a way that won't automatically result in reinforced regiments of ACLU lawyers storming courthouses around the country. But we have to have the discussion. We can't go on with the black-white, either-or approach to a deadly problem.

I ride the Metro every day. I think about what happened in London and in Madrid, and about the bus bombings that periodically terrorize Israel. It can happen here. We need to decide, rationally, how to give those who are sworn to protect us the tools to prevent it.

In the meantime, go ahead and search my briefcase and lunch box. I'm as innocent as Shannon, if probably not as attractive.

I didn't say that.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

11 comments:

The Mistress of the Dark said...

If I hear "I'm Joe The Plumber" one more time...I'm going to scream.

Just a random thought...

Amanda said...

At a tangent to bag searches, Australia recently launched a trial of some sort of human x-ray that can see through your underwear! No, they don't see through your clothes and on to your skin. They go right through....Phew!

Anonymous said...

This is just another example of the great divide of thought we have. Each side is adamantly staunch and can give facts and data to justify their position. One of the reasons I like reading your blog is that you present both sides of an issue in a fair, intelligent way without bias. What is unfortunate is that we are having to be protected from ourselves.

Bilbo said...

Andrea - sorry...I meant to say, George the Baker.

Amanda - I read about the super x-ray thing. If anyone wants to x-ray me through my clothes, they deserve the terrifying sight of what I look like without them.

Bandit - thanks for the comment. I also have some thoughts about having to be protected from ourselves, but that's a topic for another day.

fiona said...

If I'm to be searched then I want a full strip search, no use looking in my bag your only going to find some loose change, a lipstick, wallet and fluff. Show me the terrorist who pops a bomb in their purse for future use!
Oh and as to the strip search I want Orlando Bloom to do it thank you very much. I am an innocent and if my privacy is to be invaded I want someone HOT to do the invading.

Mike said...

This one of those becareful what you wish for issues. One solution. Get rid of trains and buses. Everybody has to drive. And to cut carbon emissions everybody will be on vespa's.

Anonymous said...

I don't have an answer I just wanted to point out that:

We want security, but are unwilling to endorse the measures which will help ensure it.

is the truest sentence ever spoken errr.. I mean written.

Jean-Luc Picard said...

That x-ray device sounds creepy. Time to wear lead pants!

lacegem said...

I agree with Fiona. I would agree to a search if the guy doing the search is a hottie! If I'm going to have my privacy violated then let it be a gorgeous hunk to do it!

Melissa B. said...

I used to commute on Metro. I don't very often anymore, since I don't have a stop near my place of employment. BUT...as a long-time Metro Rider, and a metro-region resident who lived thru the terrors of 9-11 (if not literally, then pretty durn close), I have to take Zipcode's view.

I was teaching a class of 28 16-year-olds when the Twin Towers, then the Pentagon, crumbled in flames and ashes. 26 of those kids had parents working at the Pentagon on that day. Thankfully, all those parentals survived, although we were pretty worried for a good long while.

Meanwhile, across town, my little sis was toiling at the Capitol. She was, figuratively at least, at ground zero. DC was in chaos. No one knew what to do. 7 years later, my beautiful old Capitol Hill neighborhood is patrolled by soldiers in camo with big, nasty-looking guns. Strategically placed planters protect sacred National Landmarks. I don't mind waiting while my bag is searched. At least it makes me feel protected.

Bilbo said...

Fiona and Lacegem - I'll be right over...

Mike - why stop there? Get rid of trains and buses and you eliminate bombs in those places. Outlaw clothing and nobody will be able to hide suicide vests. What a great excuse for nudity!

Twinkie - glad someone picked up on that point!

Capt Picard - lead pants? I have some really awful mental imagery here...

Melissa - I was in the Pentagon on 9/11...probably one of the reasons I feel the way I do about the topic.