English
Argumentative Paper: Should the Government Support Body Scanners in Airports
The very nature of flying in an aircraft has changed since the infamous 9/11 incident, when terrorists commandeered aircraft and turned them into missiles. Since 9/11, security agencies have devised increasingly stringent measures to screen potential terrorists at airports. The latest addition to the arsenal to security agencies is body scanners, which expose passengers to X Rays or millimetric waves and obtain an image of what the passengers may be carrying below their clothes. Body scanners have come under intense debate over their efficacy, the overarching security philosophy in which they fit in, and medical concerns. Notwithstanding, the thesis of this paper is that it is important for the government to disregard the fears of naysayers and support body scanners at airports.
Opponents of body scanners aver that they are a waste of money and time. They highlight that airport security measures are invariably a reaction to the previously successful security breach. As proof, they recount the constant cat and mouse game played between airport security measures and terrorist tactics. When airports screened for guns and bombs, terrorists turned to box cutters. When airports wised up to box cutters, terrorists adopted explosive laden sneakers. When airports began screening footwear, terrorists used liquids. The spiral continues with airports now banning printer cartridges after they were used to transport a bomb (Schneier, 2010). Based on this premise, opponents of body scanners argue that determined airport security measures merely become a framework that terrorists plot to beat. While airport security measures can at best catch ill prepared terrorists, the more important serious and dangerous terrorists can only be thwarted through ‘better investigation and intelligence’ (Schneier, 2010). However, the argument against the efficacy of body scanners has no answer to the basic fact that body scanners close one more loophole in airport security, forcing terrorists to adopt more and more audacious methods to beat the system; methods that would be caught out by security agencies (Barnet, 2010).
Some opponents argue that while body scanners may be required to screen potential threats, they should not be used indiscriminately as a rule, causing harassment and delays for all. They argue that profiling of possible threats should be intelligently done, and only potential threats should be exposed to body scanners. Adopting this approach, terrorists would not know the range of technologies at the disposal of security agencies, making breaches more difficult (Baum, 2010). This approach, however, requires profiling passengers based on age, gender and race, and would fall afoul of the charge of being racist and discriminatory in character. Hence, it would be difficult to implement, leaving the option of a hundred percent check by body scanners as the only practicable option.
Some opponents of body scanners are concerned about the medical implications of exposing people to the X Rays and millimetric waves of body scanners. They argue that body scanners violate the innate medical principle of avoiding exposure to X Rays unless medically required. They argue that the intensity levels of body scanners are not known in the open domain, and hence the harmful effects cannot be calculated. They insinuate possible collusion between the manufacturers of body scanners and airport security agencies (Paur, 2011). Such fears are unfounded, as the exposure is of minimal intensity, and it would take 1000 exposures to body scanners to cumulatively equate the exposure to a single X Ray. Further, details of exposures are best left out of the open domain, as such details would provide information to terrorists to find ways to foil the body scanners too.
In summary, it can be said that the arguments of opponents of body scanners are unfounded. Body scanners need to be adopted as a means of continuously closing out avenues of threat by terrorists. Selective screening is not an option as it opens the security framework to charges of racial profiling. Fears based on medical side effects due to exposure are unfounded as the intensity of waves emitted by body scanners is minimal. Therefore, it is necessary for the government to support the use of body scanners at airports.
References
Barnet, A. (2010). Resist the complainers. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/11/22/do-body-scanners-make-us-safer/resist-the-complainers
Baum, P. (2010). Security depends on many tactics. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/11/22/do-body-scanners-make-us-safer/security-depends-on-many-tactics
Paur, J. (2011). Questions linger on safety of airport body scanners. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/12/questions-linger-on-safety-of-airport-body-scanners/
Schneier, B. (2010). A waste of money and time. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/11/22/do-body-scanners-make-us-safer/a-waste-of-money-and-time
