My Other Web Site

    • Edit
    • Delete
    • Tags
    • Autopost

    I'm Tired of the "Playing Into the Hands of Al-Qaeda" Argument

    By Dennis D. McDonald

    These days if you appear to be defending the need to screen passengers before airline travel it's not unusual to get the response "Osama has won!"

    The idea appears to be that by authorizing TSA to locate explosives on the person of airline travelers we are giving up the very freedoms we cherish.

    I admit it's an attractive argument. I hate being searched. I hate having to give up items from my carry-on luggage that I know made it through one airport checkpoint only to be deemed illegal at another on the same trip. Complaining about poorly trained or rude TSA staff is a cottage industry; we've all done it.

    I'm also reminded of one of George Orwell's "As I Please" newspaper columns from June 9, 1944 where he discussed the "playing into the hands of" argument. Here's an excerpt:

    For example, if you say anything damaging about British imperialism, you are playing into the hands of Dr Goebbels. If you criticize Stalin you are playing into the hands of the Tablet and the Daily Telegraph. If you criticize Chiang Kai-Shek you are playing into the hands of Wang Ching-Wei — and so on, indefinitely. Objectively this charge is often true. It is always difficult to attack one party to a dispute without temporarily helping the other.

    What's the point? The point is that in a dangerous world we have to make difficult choices. Treating poorly paid TSA agents as the enemy in a world where bad guys are trying to kill us is an easy response. But it misses the point.

    I admit that my response to this "debate" is at least partly emotional. I remember seeing the second plane slam into the tower on September 11 and I remember what the smoke cloud smelled like afterwards that settled over Brooklyn. I think about that whenever I listen to shrill debaters on either side of the issue. 

    Have humiliating mistakes been made? Yes. Can the screening process be improved? Yes.

    But let's stop with the "playing into the hands of" argument. It's not helping matters any and only serves to divert our attention from the fact that there are bad guys out there trying to kill us and that at least some of our tax dollars are being spent trying to keep this from happening again.

    Copyright (c) 2010 by Dennis D. McDonald

    • 23 November 2010
    • Views
    • Permalink
    • 4 responses
    • Like
    • Comment
    over 1 year ago NotBuyingIt responded:
    Where your argument breaks down in my mind is when you say, " in a world where bad guys are trying to kill us." Are they really? They're not trying terribly hard if they are. I haven't seen any buses or trains blow up and those are completely unguarded. One guy in nine years has to tried to detonate a car bomb and failed. In Iraq and Afghanistan car bombs go off nearly every day. Maybe it's just harder to get the raw materials here than it is there, but I find it hard to believe that in nine years not one of those events have taken place, if the enemy is as you say, "trying to kill us." Assuming you're right and I'm under-reacting, why are we only concerned with airport security? I remember in the months after 9/11 every truck was stopped at the crossings into Manhattan. I haven't seen that happen in ages, yet a vehicle packed to the till with explosives made its way into Times Square. So I'm just curious what makes airline security a class above all others, that requires each participant to hand over their rights and their dignities in the name of protecting us all from an extremely small risk, if we're willing to turn a blind eye towards every other form of transportation. Its worth noting that more people have been killed by psychotic gunmen in the past year than by terrorists. Why aren't we demanding that the NRA give up the 2nd amendment? Surely that one has less to offer a free society than the 4th. I personally think the terrorists have won and they know it. Success for them is no longer defined as the murder and maiming of innocents, although that's certainly icing on the cake. Rather success is now defined as an attempt because even a failed attempt causes us to impose more restrictions on ourselves and waste more money in this fight that can't be won.
    over 1 year ago Dennis McDonald responded:
    Dennis McDonald
    Dear "NotBuyingIt":

    Thank you for your comment!

    You offer compelling arguments that support a rational discussion of this issue. Arguing for consistency always raises important issues. \

    At the same time, you do realize that an argument based on "they're not trying terribly hard" can just as well be used by pro-security-scanning folks to support an alternate conclusion such as "See, all the investment in security has paid off!"

    Also, if you believe that we are now safe from potential mass murders because the bad guys are just sitting back in their caves and cackling about how much money we're spending on security, well, I hope to God you're right. I guess I'm not that optimistic, but maybe that's just me!

    over 1 year ago MadRocketScientist responded:
    I, too, am tired of playing into the hands of Al Qaeda. I'm tired of allowing them to cause us to panic and over-react. I'm tired of our government constantly reacting to the last plot, as if the terrorists lack anyone with true imagination to dream up a new way to hurt us. To come at us sideways once again.

    If we spent as much money training and paying professional investigators as we do on physical security scanning equipment (equipment that the manufacturer admits would not have caught the underwear bomber), we'd have less outrage, and faster, more efficient movement through airports. If we had private companies doing security, companies with clearly defined & transparent complaint procedures, instead of a government bureaucracy that claims sovereign immunity when their agents harass or violate our rights (and labels those who demand that their personal rights be respected as 'domestic extremists'), we'd at least have a way to affect change when people drunk with authority step over the line.

    “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
    --William Pitt

    over 1 year ago MadRocketScientist responded:
    Case in point:

    http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/11/causing_terror.html

  • Dennis McDonald's Space

    I enjoy wildlife, nature, music, movies, books, history, science, technology, & gardening. My main web site http://www.ddmcd.com is mostly about using technology to improve management, collaboration, innovation, & communication.

  • About Dennis McDonald

    I enjoy wildlife, nature, music, movies, books, history, science, technology, & gardening. My main web site http://www.ddmcd.com is mostly about using technology to improve management, collaboration, innovation, & communication.

  • Subscribe via RSS

    Archive

    2012 (16)
    May (1)
    April (6)
    March (5)
    February (2)
    January (2)
    2011 (200)
    November (8)
    October (10)
    September (7)
    August (15)
    July (30)
    June (11)
    May (24)
    April (34)
    March (21)
    February (18)
    January (22)
    2010 (264)
    December (5)
    November (15)
    October (17)
    September (13)
    August (26)
    July (24)
    June (29)
    May (34)
    April (37)
    March (32)
    February (21)
    January (11)
    2009 (199)
    December (18)
    November (13)
    October (18)
    September (25)
    August (32)
    July (31)
    June (25)
    May (37)
  • Elsewhere On the Web:

    • More Timber Branch Park images
    • My main web site
    • My YouTube channel
    • Book reviews
    • Movie reviews
    • Linkedin
    • Twitter
    • Google+
    • Things Growing In Our Yard, Sept. 24, 2011

    Follow Me

Theme created for Posterous by Obox