Response by Martin L. Cowen III to “The TSA is Keeping the Skies Safe” by Gabriel Schoenfeld
I respectfully disagree with Mr. Schoenfeld’s defense of the TSA’s new, intrusive security measures.
Like all new legislation, the new rules are about money and power. The so-called necessity of any new rule or law is always hidden behind a rationale of the form: “Save the children (or whatever)!” The airlines get the money by transferring the cost and responsibility for passenger and property security to the Government as well as the cost of a catastrophic loss in the rare case of failure. The Government gets the power by subjecting innocent people to strip searches and full law enforcement pat downs. If the “herd” of airlines passengers will accept this, they will accept anything, thus unlimited power to the TSA. This argument will not persuade my readers, though, because the fact of legislation is so common and obvious, like the air we breathe, that it will not be noticed.
Neither will the argument from the Nazis, that is a favorite of mine, persuade many readers. I have always wondered how the Nazis got an entire population of Jews to submit to slaughter by walking into gas chambers. One answer, I imagine, is that their human dignity was degraded in a series of small humiliating abuses over many years. How much farther can the TSA go in human degradation now: rectal exams, vaginal searches? There is almost no further violation of human dignity that I can imagine that does not involve the infliction of actual pain. I am thinking of waterboarding passengers prior to takeoff. I do not think that even apologists like Mr. Schoenfeld would tolerate waterboarding to screen out potential terrorists, even though it would improve his sacred safety.
Perhaps more persuasive will be pointing out that picking the two hundred passengers (there were only 40 passengers on Flight 93) on an airplane to protect with excessively intrusive measures seems odd. Perhaps there is something in the human psyche relating to death in a small space from which there is no easy escape that strikes particular fear in the human heart. We all remember the little girl, “Baby Jessica,” rescued from a well in October 1987. Action adventure fiction provides many examples of victim rich targets for extermination by terrorists that are not airplanes. Thankfully, the mall does not do body cavity searches, yet.
And, how often is this argument heard? The passengers on Flight 93 fought back and thwarted the terrorists. The three other flights of 911 passengers did not. The passivity of the other 911 passengers, whose planes reached the terrorists’ goals, is a direct result of the policies of the Federal Government. In the absence of the “one size fits all” Government mandated “passive approach” to hijackers, there might have been Todd Beamers (one of the Flight 93 heroes who fought back against the terrorists) on the other 911 flights. The Government wants passive, obedient passengers. The Government does not like “Todd Beamers.” The passivity of passengers willing to accept any abuse by authority, legitimate or not, is precisely what is being counted on by the TSA to win the current battle to enforce its massive degradation of human dignity. The several recent victories (the underwear bomber and the shoe bomber) against airline terrorism have been the result of aggressive passenger response to suspicious behavior, not something favored by the bureaucrats at the TSA. Mr. Schoenfeld is the spokesperson for the passive. Being a bureaucrat means never having to say you are sorry and we can be sure that no bureaucrat will be sorry for having created a passive airline ridership, thus allowing 911 to be as effective as it was.
I have a dream. I dream that the escalators leading down to the passenger transportation tunnel at ATL are free from TSA employees and equipment. I dream of free people, traveling freely at the Atlanta airport, some with tickets, some without, who just enjoy the hubbub of people moving about and like watching the airplanes.
The scaredy-cats wonder, how can we ever travel safely without the TSA? The answer is this: Do not disempower the Todd Beamers among us. You scaredy-cats like Mr. Schoenfeld, who know your profound inability to provide for your own self-defense or action in defense of others, do not make up the entire population. There are a great many Todd Beamers among us. They will protect us. In fact, the only reason you scaredy-cats count at all is the fact that you have a vote. You are no use to people who want to live freely. You are of use only to politicians who want to exploit your weakness and your fear (“Save the children!”) in order to obtain your vote. You do not care about limitations upon your freedom. Only the Todd Beamers, those who are capable of independent living, care about their freedom.
My final argument is an argument from morality, which will persuade almost no one! Plato defined justice as minding your own business. The business of Government is to provide for defense against foreign invaders, to provide courts for the resolution of disputes, and to provide a police force to arrest wrongdoers. The task of emergency self-defense, in our homes and businesses, belongs to each of us as individuals. The business of protecting its passengers and its property belongs to the airlines. Front-line personal property protection is not a Government function. If these principles were applied, all airlines would be responsible for providing their own security. The extremes of action might be two different types of airlines, one called “Noble Airlines,” for the Todd Beamers of the world, and the other airline called “Sheep Airlines,” for Mr. Schoenfeld and his ilk. Those like Mr. Schoenfeld, who live in fear, could travel Sheep Airlines and be subject to body cavity searches. The Todd Beamers of the worlds, who are capable of self-defense, could travel Noble Airlines, where we could board and travel the wide world unmolested and with full human dignity. The market place would determine which airline would be successful. However, these two choices would not define the only options. Human ingenuity would provide dozens, perhaps hundreds, of innovative solutions to airline security, most of which we cannot even imagine. None of which will be realized so long as Mr. Shoenfeld’s views prevail.
The sheep of the world, like Mr. Schoenfeld, currently rule the world. Sheep have more votes. My only choice is to avoid flying all together. I was greatly offended by having to remove my belt and shoes to board the airlines. Electronic strip searches and full law enforcement pat downs exceed the limit of my toleration. A thug is still a thug, even when he is smiling, recites his TSA script well, asserts that it is for my own good, and is of the same sex during the assault. I will drive from now on, take the ship, or stay at home. Unfortunately, I am confident that the sheep will not miss me.
