Tattle Tails?
How far are you willing to go against your fellow citizens in the
name of national security?
By now, many of us who fly out of air carrier airports have have gone through the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA's) latest training program in an effort to prevent terrorists from using GA aircraft to wreak havoc. In the wake of IRS foe Joseph Stack's kamakazi act on a Texas IRS office recently, Texas Congressman Mike McCaul was quick to label the crash--which left two people on the ground, one dead and one critically injured; Stack died in the crash--a terrorist act.
One wonders why previous attacks against government installations haven't also been labeled terrorism, but you can bet your bottom gallon of avgas that when politicians use such language, they're going somewhere; there's an agenda. McCaul's party, the GOP, is normally known as foes of big government and freedom-quencing security scrutiny of private citizens, but this time, McCaul is breaking ranks with fellow Republicans most likely to demand a crackdown on General Aviation security. Even in his zeal, McCaul recognizes no security measures could have prevented Joseph Stack from flying straight into the IRS without an appointment, short of climbing into his head and observing his thought processes. Stack owned the aircraft, presumably had restricted airport access to it, and had no history that would have led us to believe he was headed out on a mission of vengeance.
Which brings up my mixed feelings on the TSA's de-facto deputization of us as pilots, mechanics, and others with legitimate reasons to have access to an aiport. During our security access training, shaped and mandated by the TSA, we're supposed to challenge people we meet to produce an access card, or we report them or detain them. If that doesn't creep you out the way it does to me, you probably don't see the parallels in history. My father fought Nazis in WWII, sunk a U-boat and shot at retreating Germans on Normandy Beach, so this is close to home. In the presence of a culture that had become so terrifyingly vicious... all in the name of safety, order and economic prosperity...that they built the world's largest network of secret police. National Socialists commandeered Germany's pre war representative democracy, and "encouraged" citizens to report people they deemed disloyal.
So here's my dilemma: If one of us who have been trained and unofficially deputized by the TSA to challenge and confront possible security risks had been present when Joseph Stack approached his airplane, we might have seen enough telltale emotional or personality symptoms to have prevented his attack. But, would you have done it?
While recently renewing my CFII certificate, I had to answer such a question. I got it wrong because I picked the obviously wrong answer, and wrote a note to Gleim, the flight instructor renewal course provider. What I told them is that I am not comfortable with being asked to exercise semi-police powers when I have not had law enforcement training to recognize problems and protect myself, all without a weapon. I have a wife and children, for gosh sakes. The people at Gleim were more than sympathetic, and agreed that I should be able to opt out of the TSA's demi-cop program, for safety's sake. But getting back to Stack; I might have prevented his flight, but I might have been hurt or killed by trying to prevent it, and that's the dilemma.
Sadly there's another dilemma, too; the morality of tattling on fellow aviators, reporting them to the TSA, police or FAA. What is your political belief, religion or philosophy? What is your ethnic background or gender? If the day comes when you happen to be one of those society deems a threat or a danger, today's security rules could become tomorrow's portal to persecution. The reason we agreed to open the door was safety, an altar at which most Americans bow today--just look at the cottage industry of liability lawyers and the companies that make safety equipment mandated on new cars--but when the law is abused and the government is too powerful, the reason for starting it all is lost in the fog.
Every time the TSA or Congress want to saddle us with a new security rule, I suggest we scrutinize them carefully, rejecting the ones that restrict our civil rights, fail to make flying safer, and especially those that turn our neighbors into quasi cops and informants. Yes, that means letters, phone calls to media and government, but aren't those part of our normal responsibilities as American citizens and voters, anyway?
By now, many of us who fly out of air carrier airports have have gone through the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA's) latest training program in an effort to prevent terrorists from using GA aircraft to wreak havoc. In the wake of IRS foe Joseph Stack's kamakazi act on a Texas IRS office recently, Texas Congressman Mike McCaul was quick to label the crash--which left two people on the ground, one dead and one critically injured; Stack died in the crash--a terrorist act.
One wonders why previous attacks against government installations haven't also been labeled terrorism, but you can bet your bottom gallon of avgas that when politicians use such language, they're going somewhere; there's an agenda. McCaul's party, the GOP, is normally known as foes of big government and freedom-quencing security scrutiny of private citizens, but this time, McCaul is breaking ranks with fellow Republicans most likely to demand a crackdown on General Aviation security. Even in his zeal, McCaul recognizes no security measures could have prevented Joseph Stack from flying straight into the IRS without an appointment, short of climbing into his head and observing his thought processes. Stack owned the aircraft, presumably had restricted airport access to it, and had no history that would have led us to believe he was headed out on a mission of vengeance.
Which brings up my mixed feelings on the TSA's de-facto deputization of us as pilots, mechanics, and others with legitimate reasons to have access to an aiport. During our security access training, shaped and mandated by the TSA, we're supposed to challenge people we meet to produce an access card, or we report them or detain them. If that doesn't creep you out the way it does to me, you probably don't see the parallels in history. My father fought Nazis in WWII, sunk a U-boat and shot at retreating Germans on Normandy Beach, so this is close to home. In the presence of a culture that had become so terrifyingly vicious... all in the name of safety, order and economic prosperity...that they built the world's largest network of secret police. National Socialists commandeered Germany's pre war representative democracy, and "encouraged" citizens to report people they deemed disloyal.
So here's my dilemma: If one of us who have been trained and unofficially deputized by the TSA to challenge and confront possible security risks had been present when Joseph Stack approached his airplane, we might have seen enough telltale emotional or personality symptoms to have prevented his attack. But, would you have done it?
While recently renewing my CFII certificate, I had to answer such a question. I got it wrong because I picked the obviously wrong answer, and wrote a note to Gleim, the flight instructor renewal course provider. What I told them is that I am not comfortable with being asked to exercise semi-police powers when I have not had law enforcement training to recognize problems and protect myself, all without a weapon. I have a wife and children, for gosh sakes. The people at Gleim were more than sympathetic, and agreed that I should be able to opt out of the TSA's demi-cop program, for safety's sake. But getting back to Stack; I might have prevented his flight, but I might have been hurt or killed by trying to prevent it, and that's the dilemma.
Sadly there's another dilemma, too; the morality of tattling on fellow aviators, reporting them to the TSA, police or FAA. What is your political belief, religion or philosophy? What is your ethnic background or gender? If the day comes when you happen to be one of those society deems a threat or a danger, today's security rules could become tomorrow's portal to persecution. The reason we agreed to open the door was safety, an altar at which most Americans bow today--just look at the cottage industry of liability lawyers and the companies that make safety equipment mandated on new cars--but when the law is abused and the government is too powerful, the reason for starting it all is lost in the fog.
Every time the TSA or Congress want to saddle us with a new security rule, I suggest we scrutinize them carefully, rejecting the ones that restrict our civil rights, fail to make flying safer, and especially those that turn our neighbors into quasi cops and informants. Yes, that means letters, phone calls to media and government, but aren't those part of our normal responsibilities as American citizens and voters, anyway?
0 Comments
Click here to sign up now.