Nov 192010
 November 19, 2010  Posted by  Surveillance

Because I believe in presenting opposing views, here’s an editorial that appeared earlier this week in the Dallas Morning News:

We’ve all been annoyed at having to remove our shoes, toss a bottle of water or repeatedly walk through the airport metal detector, disrobing one item at a time, after the alarm sounded. But most of us also understand that the security team generally knows what’s most effective in preventing terrorists from targeting airplanes – and the flying public.


The terrorist threat continues to evolve, requiring defenses to change, sometimes in ways that aren’t convenient. In the 1970s, terrorists hijacked planes for political ransom. In 2001, they turned passenger jets into flying missiles. More recently, terrorists have smuggled explosives onto planes or attempted to remotely detonate bombs shipped as cargo.

No technology is perfect, but imaging equipment is the most effective for detecting explosives and other dangerous items hidden on human bodies. And a full-body scan conducted by a same-gender security agent is the most reasonable alternative.

Read the full editorial in the Dallas Morning News.

Okay, I’ve presented an opposing view.  Now to return to our regular programming, because there’s nothing reasonable about having to consent to what would be considered molestation or assault in any other setting as a precondition to enjoy our right (not privilege, right) to air travel.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.