Even though I had been flying once a year for the first years of my life for our family's annual vacation, I don't have much recollectionm of pre-9/11 security at airports. It amounts to realizing when I was 6 or 7, "huh, my dad can't come as far into the airport as before (he would drive)", and seeing added scanners and longer lines. So, in general, I haven't been personally affected much at all by beefed-up security, not past the hour earlier we would leave each rare occasion to the airport.
Linda Chavez and Adnan R. Khan both have great points in their essays regarding racial profiling, but I feel I resonate more with Chavez because I prioritize our National Security (I know it's easy to say when it is not my sacrifice). It is a necessary evil for the safety of the whole, and it only makes sense to pay attention to the common attributes of terrorists when checking passengers. To not notice and act on these similarities would be foolish. Then again, if race and skin color are the only similarities, than there is not a strong enough warning sign to stop, question, and frisk the person. Objectiveness should be used at all times.
Zara Gelsey, author of "The FBI is Reading Over your Shoulder" presents a weak case against the USA Patriot act by leaving out facts that detail the act's limitations, and therefore exaggerating the FBI's presence. First of all, if you are innocent of any crimes ( not that the FBI can prosecute you of lesser crimes based solely off the info), then why should you care if you are being examined? It makes me feel safer, it definitely doesn't "inhibit my thinking". Gelsey seems to dramatize the FBI's role as more invasive than it is. You have to ask yourself, "would I rather be safer and have some less privacy or have my privacy but be unprotected by psychos in the library?" I choose safety.
No comments:
Post a Comment