Assume that you are not flying, but your daughter and her daughter (your six [6] year old granddaughter) are flying to the East coast. Would you want all passengers, or none, or some, to be subjected to the (scan or intrusive pat down)?
If you say “some,” can you spell out who they would be? If you say “none,” that simplifies the matter, but would you then want your daughter and the granddaughter to take the train instead of the plane?
If you say you do not want your daughter and granddaughter to be subjected to the scan or pat down option, would you extend that privacy protection to the other passengers? If so, you are then saying that no one should be subjected to the option. Let us say no one, except the suspicious ones. What do you have to lose by such a stance?
What you have to lose, is the additional protection (if any) against a terrorist attack that is afforded by the more intrusive search. Is there additional protection? Does the (scan or pat down) discover dangerous items or substances that the former x-ray and back-handed pat down would fail to discover? In other words, is the new procedure more effective than the former procedure in prevention of a terrorist attack?
Can we be sure that terrorists will not use children to carry dangerous items or substances aboard the plane? Religious persuasion? Coercion by threats to the child or family?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment