The is a lightly-edited repost of a diary I wrote back in 2005. Enjoy
I've been thinking about the TSA's naked scanners and pat-down grope searches, and wondering if it makes sense to give up my civil liberties to stop a terrorist attack. In other words, if we allow some thug to view the naked genitals of our children, touch our junk, shout unconstitutional orders and paw through our underwear, do we save enough US citizens to justify the loss of our rights?
Let's start by pretending that the answer isn't obvious. After all, it's not hard to calculate the actual probability that one of us might die of a terrorist attack on US soil. If we count 9/11 and the smaller terrorist attacks, we end up with something close to 2800 terror deaths in ten years. That's about 280 deaths by terror on US soil per year. By comparison, we lose about 400,000 people per year to tobacco, and 20,000 to homicide. Follow me below the fold for some more numbers...
Here's a helpful chart. Let's look at the numbers and perform some simple calculations. A little arithmetic reveals that you're more likely to die due to smoking than in a terrorist incident by a factor of 1290 to 1.
You're more likely to die due to "poor diet and physical inactivity" than terrorism by a factor of 1240 to 1.
Auto accidents vs. terror? How about 85 to 1.
Incident involving firearms? More likely than a terror death by a 94 to 1.
So let's ask a simple question. Would you be willing to allow government agents to grope your genitals without a warrant in order to end deaths which relate to abuse of firearms? How about deaths in auto-accidents?
Obviously not. The very idea is ridiculous. Can you imagine shipping Ford executives off to Syria for water-boarding? How about monitoring your telephone and emails to make sure you don't die due to a poor diet? Should we send in the goons each time someone orders a hamburger instead of the salad? And what about alcohol deaths? You're more likely to die during an alcohol related fatality than terrorism by a factor of 274 to 1. So why don't we monitor the phones of bar owners without warrants? We might find out when the next shipment of beer is coming in, intercept it, and save some poor College Republican's life.
Here's another helpful chart.
At the very top, we learn that about 2.5 million people die in the US every year. (To be exact, 2,423,712 people died in 2007.) In other words, your chance of dying of any other cause, vs your chances of dying by terrorism are 7881 to 1.
That's right, your chances of not dying in a terrorist attack are about 7900 to 1.
And let's get real. We're all going to die. No matter how many genitals the TSA gropes, no matter how many naked pictures of children are taken without a warrant, you're going to die. Even if the government spends billions of dollars and breaks every clause in the Constitution just to save you, you will still die of something. So will your children.
Get over it.
But you're not going to die in a terror attack. In fact, you're more likely to die by overdosing on non-prescription pain relievers like Advil or Motrin than in a terror attack by a factor of 25 to 1. (We had 7,600 deaths due to "Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin" in 2000.)
So why are we allowing the TSA thugs to violate our civil rights? We could have a twenty-fold increase in terror deaths and we'd still be in more danger from Motrin!!
Granted, there's the possibility that terror attacks will increase, and we should be on our guard against this. But before we give up our civil liberties and our standing in the world community as a defender of freedom, it behooves us to ask how much danger we're truly in, and what the alternatives are. Can we infiltrate the terrorist groups? Give the FBI and CIA a bigger budget? Work on the social and political causes of Arab terrorism? Lean on the Saudis, who are the main financiers of terrorism?
So when someone says "We're taking naked scans of your children to keep the airlines safe from terror." I'm very sure the speaker is thuggish and fascistic beyond all reason. And this is what the dictatorial goons in charge of the TSA are telling us. "We must touch your vagina to keep the world safe from Osama bin Ladin." They want to allow some abuse-screaming, child-groping ape (who, by the way, is not even a law enforcement officer) to paw through our underwear in order to keep us from a fate that's less likely than overdosing on Motrin by a factor of more than 25 to 1.
I'm not afraid of being killed in a terrorist attack. A rational look at statistics tells me that dying of terrorism is far less likely than any other form of death that doesn't start with the word "other." Once you do the math, the risks vs. rewards of allowing the TSA's goons unfettered power become obvious; the risk is much, much higher than the reward. Before I allow some sweaty-palmed McDonalds reject to touch my penis I'd like to have the risk of death by terror be worse than the risk of ODing on non-prescription pain medication. I think that's a fair standard.
I firmly believe in American civil liberties, and I'm willing to allow some risk to myself, my wife, and my children in order to preserve those liberties. (IMHO, taking a risk for liberties is what America is about.) And forcing the TSA to protect our rights and engage in something other than security theater, when I'm 15 times more likely to die of a peptic ulcer (4079 deaths in 2002) than get blown up by a jihadist seems... absolutely mandatory to me.
So where does this leave us? Once you look at the numbers, there's no justification at all for giving up a single form of liberty, and my reponse to those who would take my liberties away is as it's always been - throw the bastards out!