Can I Have a Look in Your Bag, Please?

The local discussional anthill was kicked over yesterday when this article appeared on the front page of The Washington Post: Metro to Randomly Search Riders' Bags. The searches were a topic of huge and intense discussion in blogs, e-mails, offices, and (not surprisingly) Metro trains and buses; everyone has an opinion either for or against, and no one that I read or ran across seems to have been neutral or indifferent.

As with discussion of most major issues nowadays, the arguments tended to polarize around two extremes. Zipcode, with her background in law enforcement, was on one side of the argument, and her blog post on the topic featured photos of the Madrid railway bombings as an example of what could happen if the police don't have the authority to randomly search bags. On the other side was blogger Shannon, whose post on the topic was titled Say 'So Long' to Your Civil Liberties?

Who's right?

Well, as usual, there are good and legitimate arguments to be made for and against. Shannon's fear for the loss of her civil liberties is not unreasonable, given the current administration's reckless disregard for the Constitution in favor of increasing, centralized presidential powers. The so-called "warrentless wiretap" issue is a prime example: instead of going to Congress and explaining why existing powers were insufficient to deal with a perceived threat, the administration simply bulled ahead on its own authority and - in violation of every rule of common sense - shot itself in its legal, moral, and ethical feet (okay, Mr Bush only has two feet, gimme some license, here). Shannon's recurring point is that she hasn't broken any laws, and so shouldn't have to submit to random searches. She laments, "That's not the America I grew up with."

Zipcode's argument, which is equally compelling, is that random bag searches are a minimalist security measure and a necessary evil in a dangerous world. I can agree with this. While Shannon is correct that this isn't the America we all grew up with, neither is the rest of the world. For whatever reason, there are people out there who don't like Americans and would just as soon see us dead in large numbers. At a time when there are utterly fanatical people who believe God has given them the authority and responsibility to murder infidels, or that their political beliefs are so compelling that murder is a justifiable tactic, I tend to be a bit more concerned about my safety than I am in the face of "ordinary" threats like muggers, venal Congressmen, and greedy bankers.

So...

We need to take some measures to prevent - or at least, minimize the chance of - murderous attacks. Almost every blog post I read or interview on the topic I heard yesterday that was opposed to the searches focused on one of two arguments:

First is the "I'm innocent and my rights are being violated" argument. Well, yes, chances are you are innocent. Shannon is unlikely to want to kill me because I'm non-religious, or Caucasian, or have gray hair, or am right-handed. But a simple look at the world around us shows that there are others who would want to kill me for any of those reasons, or others.

The other is the "Random searches don't work, this is a stupid idea, my commuting is already hosed up and this will make it worse" argument. Well, random searches aren't a perfect remedy. If you randomly search every 17th person and the 18th one is the one with the suicide vest, was the search useless? Even a 100% search will miss some things (look at the periodic exposes of the things reporters manage to sneak past airport security in search of a story). In my view, random searches are, in fact, a waste of time except insofar as they may deter an amateur, not-totally-committed-to-the-cause attacker. You can't say it in the politically correct America of 2008, but if we're going to search people, we need to do it scientifically...and this means in line with established profiles of the sort of people whose looks and actions indicate that they are more likely to be a threat. Searching gray-haired Granny from Peoria is pretty much a waste of time when we already know that a bearded fellow who looks nervous and is wearing baggy clothes unsuited to the weather is more likely to pose a threat.

So if you oppose random searches, what's your alternative? Do you have a better suggestion?

We have become prisoners of our desire to have it both ways. We want security, but are unwilling to endorse the measures which will help ensure it. We cherish our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights, but are reluctant to admit that those rights can be abused by those who believe in their right and duty to kill us. We're Americans...we believe there's some technological fix to the problem that will let us keep all our traditional freedoms while fingering only the bad guys.

It won't happen.

I believe that we can, in fact, have it both ways if we are willing to look at the problem rationally. If we can admit there's a problem (and that's perhaps the hardest part for Joe the Plumber to acknowledge), and then engage in a rational discussion of the measures we can take within the context of the Constitution, we can probably find a way that won't automatically result in reinforced regiments of ACLU lawyers storming courthouses around the country. But we have to have the discussion. We can't go on with the black-white, either-or approach to a deadly problem.

I ride the Metro every day. I think about what happened in London and in Madrid, and about the bus bombings that periodically terrorize Israel. It can happen here. We need to decide, rationally, how to give those who are sworn to protect us the tools to prevent it.

In the meantime, go ahead and search my briefcase and lunch box. I'm as innocent as Shannon, if probably not as attractive.

I didn't say that.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo