[AtLast]

I think what I am trying to get at is being misunderstood. My main point getting lost. I don't like these scanners or the pat-downs at all and do get why people feel our Constitutional rights are being run over. Also, I posted a link of what someone else thinks because I just don't see this whole matter as simple and it has many different variables to consider. I also am coming from a place in which racial profiling is extremely distasteful to me and it is winning over my feelings about this. I have an internal conflict going on really and would hope that this would be recognized as a legitimate concern in this debate. For some, it just isn’t as important as the other things being discussed here. We all have our personal ranking system when it comes to personal freedoms and rights. This just happens to be mine. It is no more or less important than what any one else thinks or how they personally rank these concerns. And I don’t see that this is something in which any one is right or wrong.

I remember very clearly what happened after 9/11 and racial profiling in air travel prior to how security measures have been developed more fully. This is the key aspect I am posting about which goes to our Constitutional form of government. If one group of people is going to be scrutinized before getting on a plane simply because of how they look, then I believe that all passengers should be subjected to the same screenings. This doesn't have a thing to do with what and how the screening techniques work. Maybe all of the security measures should be done away with. Especially if there is no data to support that they work.

I do think that it is my responsibility to be aware of what I am agreeing to when buying an airline ticket. Or, signing any other contract. This does not mean I think body scans are OK. They are invasive. Pat downs as they are now conducted are as well. That isn’t what I am talking about.

I also believe strongly in civil disobedience like demonstrations, but do not feel that I have any more right to disrupt others than they me when exercising this right. I have exercised this right many times in my life and follow the rules of not inter interfering with the rights of others while doing so. There is reciprocity (respecting the rights of others) in demonstrating about what I believe in, I believe.

Obviously, public out cry to congressional leaders through labor unions, for example is having an impact. This is evidenced by the changes for pilots. So, if we go through the channels available to us about this, perhaps, TSA regs can be changed. This IS how we exercise our rights and freedoms.

When I explore something, I do take a look at what other people think (like the person in the forum I posted the link to. It is called debating an issue- considering all aspects of it). I can't possibly get to a balanced opinion without hearing what other people are concerned about (and I am taking in what other people are saying right here and now). This is a fundamental of the process of debate which is the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights. Debate means looking at and assessing the validity of all that is involved and coming to a conclusion. It is part of how a democracy functions.

In all of this, I would like to hear how security at airports can be less invasive, yet have some kind of efficacy in picking up possible weapons/bombs, etc. It seems to me that is these kinds of techniques can be measured somehow to demonstrate if they do keep the public safer, then, that would be a way to get things changed at airports. If nothing (or has significant statistical support) points to these techniques actually making things safer- then, get rid of them! Actually, I think there are studies that support these kinds of measures not really being all that effective. Also, what about studies on the re-traumatizing for abuse victims? This would be something else to consider in making a case to have these security measures removed at airports.