Responses to 9-11 security measures ran along several lines: The first related to America's widely expanding surveillance state:
If you have nothing to hide, why does it bother you they look?
The second, regarding the War on Terror, went something like this:
Rights don't apply to terrorists, who have no respect for life.
Thus, America tortured non-state actors, using techniques considered war crimes, when used against our soldiers in WWII.
Airports recently upped passenger security screening methods.
Rights don't apply to 99.9999984% of fliers, who must prove they are not terrorists.
If you have nothing to hide, why does it bother you they image or touch your genitals?
Screening doesn't apply to government officials, who have rights passengers don't. The physical/privacy violation should have people up in arms.
"The oppressed should rebel, and they will continue to rebel and raise disturbance until their civil rights are fully restored to them and all partial distinctions, exclusions and incapacitations are removed." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:548
Officials need funding for increased cargo screening. They're considering another airline passenger fee. Why should passengers pay for screening someone else's package? What's right about adding a financial burden to government sponsored pornography and molestation?
Planes, trains and automobiles are down to trains and automobiles for many people. However, to keep people in an oppressive system, alternatives must be limited. Don't expect help from leaders, who need another terror attack to "reconnect with voters."
Where would Thomas Jefferson land in this debate? Would he, as a government official, bypass the screening line to board a plane? Would Jefferson fly today? Should you?
Red Flags of Backscatter Machines