Ethics of security decoy

AFTER the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Summit wrapped up in Turkey’s capital Ankara in July, United States Secret Service received intelligence reports that an Iranian cell, armed with a shoulder-fired surface-to-air missile, would strike Air Force One and kill Donald Trump. This alarmed the US president’s security detail, prompting them to secretly transfer him through a catering van into another Air Force C-32A aircraft waiting nearby. The remaining passengers on Air Force One, composed of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, several White House officials, and dozens of reporters, were apparently not informed of the security threat. Instead, Air Force One took off and proceeded to the United Kingdom, effectively becoming a decoy to protect Trump from a potential assassination attempt.

The revelation of this switch has troubled many pundits, especially members of the media who were on Air Force One that day. Is it legally justified or ethically acceptable to use innocent civilians as decoy to protect America’s highest official? Is the life of a president worth more than the lives of ordinary citizens? Are they more dispensable than the president?

This has divided many Americans as the debate on the incident in both traditional and social media brewed, considering that President Trump is one of the most controversial figures in US politics today. Democrats considered the use of people as decoy for his own safety as callous and even morally jarring. Others justified it as a legitimate strategy to avert any potential threat to the president. The safety of a sitting president is, after all, a matter of utmost national security.

Nevertheless, the legality of the US Secret Service, or even our own Presidential Security Group, undertaking stealth operations for President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. to ensure his security and safety, is acceptable. For one, it is their sworn duty to protect the president. Whether using other people as decoy is morally and ethically acceptable seems debatable.

In the case of the Philippines, our presidents, past or present, do not contend with as many pervasive threats as heads of state in the United States or Europe do. Yet clear and present danger abounds due to their actions against extremism, terrorism and foreign adversaries. Former US president Bill Clinton, for example, was once transported in an unmarked aircraft during his 2000 visit to Pakistan while a decoy aircraft was used to deceive his would-be attackers. However, he did not put his press contingent in harm’s way. But using people as decoy to safeguard one’s own safety might not be a hallmark of a true leader. It suggests a lack of honor and pure self-interest to save one’s own skin.

However, the truth remains that top officials frequently use decoys to confuse attackers or as a ruse, such as a sudden change in their announced arrival at events. Remember, former senator Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr. did not arrive on time during the Liberal Party rally in Plaza Miranda in August 1971, where two grenades were hurled by an alleged communist hit squad. Similarly, it had been a recurring legend that then-president Ferdinand Marcos Sr. hired several body doubles to protect him in critical-threat areas.

Yet, there is an inherent unethical nature when innocent people are used as decoys to protect high officials. It posed a serious question on the moral integrity of the State when civilians are knowingly placed at greater risk at the expense of keeping a leader safe. In the long run, people would not support a government that dispenses their lives like pawns on a chess board. I think this is where we draw the line between the safety of our country’s officials and national security.

The ethics of decoy must be aligned with our democratic principles — all citizens are given equal protection of the law, regardless of race, color, religion, gender, politics and income. Preferring the life of one person over another on account of his or her political status is anathema to the country’s democratic way of life. The moment people’s lives become expendable is the time the State only intends to protect itself and loses its legitimacy to govern.