Christmas Dilemma: Let Them Touch You or Let Them See You
Published in La Crónica
(Mexico) on 15 December 2010
by Concepcion Badillo (link to original)
Now that the Christmas season is here, the great dilemma for the four million people that will travel by air in the United States is deciding whether they should allow themselves to be x-rayed, with the possibility of being seen totally nude, or if they prefer having their most private parts touched in public.
Since its implementation in November, the dilemma for President Barack Obama is whether to be burdened with all the aggravation these measures have raised among his fellow citizens and voters or permit a breach in airport security. The latter would open the possibility of a terrorist attack similar to the one that marked and defined his predecessor’s administration.
The fact remains that before the Islamic extremists made the planes explode over Washington and New York in 2001, U.S. airports lacked almost any security whatsoever. 2006 brought the imposition of baggage inspections. It is now prohibited to take liquids that exceed three ounces or 100 milliliters through security. This is equivalent to the amount of liquid that can fit in a shot glass of tequila, and done from concern that its contents could be used to construct a bomb.
The British would-be suicide bomber Richard Reid unsuccessfully tried to detonate explosives hidden in his shoe while traveling from Paris to Miami. This, together with Sept. 11, almost simultaneously set the standard for requiring travelers to remove their shoes to make sure that nothing is carried in them.
On Christmas day in 2009, a Nigerian by the name of Umar Farouk Adulmutallah tried to blow up an aircraft in mid-flight, with 300 passengers flying from Amsterdam to Detroit, with a bomb he had in his pants.
Immediately after this, the Obama administration decided to impose new measures that now include total body screening, either manually or by a scanner. This raises a commotion and a criticism of the authorities, who seek to find a way to preserve privacy, to which we all have the right, and who seek to curb for once the obsession we have with terrorists who want to use airplanes as weapons or instruments of negotiation, such as in the aircraft hijackings that occurred in the ‘70s.
For analysts, one of the most tense and serious problems that Obama faces is perhaps to achieve balance, finding a solution that protects the country while safeguarding the rights of a free society.
Something similar happened in the ‘80s, when U.S. embassies became the target of car bombs. Congress became concerned that diplomatic headquarters were being turned into fortresses due to the excessive security. This, they said, contradicted the image of freedom and openness that this country wants to portray.
Today the traveler has the option of going through the scanner, which shows naked images of their body without showing their face; the inspector is stationed in another room and does not know the identity of the passenger.
The manual inspections are for those who are afraid of the radiation. During the inspection you are being frisked, which includes touching of the bust and intimate parts between the legs. This is what some critics call a “federal handling.”
The government admits that these measures can be offensive, but argues they are necessary. Obama himself has said that “I understand people’s frustrations, but for now there is no other alternative.”
Opponents argue that his administration seems committed to trying to stop what has already happened but is not focused on creating a new security system that might prevent further tragedies. Some experts refer to these measures as “theatrics.” They also say that the terrorists will simply change tactics while the administration diverts economic resources that might be used for better intelligence.
However, in the past the government rejected the implementation of other methods, such as collecting personal information about the traveler with intense questioning before they board a flight. After strong criticisms from the public, Obama abandoned the idea of creating a massive data system of citizens and visitors.
In the meantime, if you travel by air this Christmas there is no choice: If you are not inspected, you do not fly. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton was asked if she would allow herself to be inspected by these methods. She said, “No, if I can avoid it.” She can, but you and I cannot.
Since its implementation in November, the dilemma for President Barack Obama is whether to be burdened with all the aggravation these measures have raised among his fellow citizens and voters or permit a breach in airport security. The latter would open the possibility of a terrorist attack similar to the one that marked and defined his predecessor’s administration.
The fact remains that before the Islamic extremists made the planes explode over Washington and New York in 2001, U.S. airports lacked almost any security whatsoever. 2006 brought the imposition of baggage inspections. It is now prohibited to take liquids that exceed three ounces or 100 milliliters through security. This is equivalent to the amount of liquid that can fit in a shot glass of tequila, and done from concern that its contents could be used to construct a bomb.
The British would-be suicide bomber Richard Reid unsuccessfully tried to detonate explosives hidden in his shoe while traveling from Paris to Miami. This, together with Sept. 11, almost simultaneously set the standard for requiring travelers to remove their shoes to make sure that nothing is carried in them.
On Christmas day in 2009, a Nigerian by the name of Umar Farouk Adulmutallah tried to blow up an aircraft in mid-flight, with 300 passengers flying from Amsterdam to Detroit, with a bomb he had in his pants.
Immediately after this, the Obama administration decided to impose new measures that now include total body screening, either manually or by a scanner. This raises a commotion and a criticism of the authorities, who seek to find a way to preserve privacy, to which we all have the right, and who seek to curb for once the obsession we have with terrorists who want to use airplanes as weapons or instruments of negotiation, such as in the aircraft hijackings that occurred in the ‘70s.
For analysts, one of the most tense and serious problems that Obama faces is perhaps to achieve balance, finding a solution that protects the country while safeguarding the rights of a free society.
Something similar happened in the ‘80s, when U.S. embassies became the target of car bombs. Congress became concerned that diplomatic headquarters were being turned into fortresses due to the excessive security. This, they said, contradicted the image of freedom and openness that this country wants to portray.
Today the traveler has the option of going through the scanner, which shows naked images of their body without showing their face; the inspector is stationed in another room and does not know the identity of the passenger.
The manual inspections are for those who are afraid of the radiation. During the inspection you are being frisked, which includes touching of the bust and intimate parts between the legs. This is what some critics call a “federal handling.”
The government admits that these measures can be offensive, but argues they are necessary. Obama himself has said that “I understand people’s frustrations, but for now there is no other alternative.”
Opponents argue that his administration seems committed to trying to stop what has already happened but is not focused on creating a new security system that might prevent further tragedies. Some experts refer to these measures as “theatrics.” They also say that the terrorists will simply change tactics while the administration diverts economic resources that might be used for better intelligence.
However, in the past the government rejected the implementation of other methods, such as collecting personal information about the traveler with intense questioning before they board a flight. After strong criticisms from the public, Obama abandoned the idea of creating a massive data system of citizens and visitors.
In the meantime, if you travel by air this Christmas there is no choice: If you are not inspected, you do not fly. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton was asked if she would allow herself to be inspected by these methods. She said, “No, if I can avoid it.” She can, but you and I cannot.
Next article![]( "Whitewashing Obama’s Multiple Failures")