Posted on 11/20/2010 8:45:25 AM PST by John Semmens
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Nipplitaliano defended her Transportation Security Administration’s new invasive searches of would be air travelers as “necessary and proper” while also acknowledging that the procedures appear to violate the Constitutional prohibition against “unreasonable searches.”
“In a perfect world everyone’s rights can be respected,” she said. “But sometimes we have to put aside strict adherence to the Constitution if a more important purpose is to be served.”
Presumably, the more important purpose is public safety. However, scientists have raised questions as to whether safety would be enhanced by submitting travelers to repeated x-ray scans. Arizona State University Professor Peter Rez estimated that the probability of dying from radiation from a body scanner is about equal to that of being killed in a terror attack: one in 30 million. And that’s if the scanners work as advertised. Rez’s study revealed that radiation doses are often higher than the manufacturer claims.
Professor John Sedat, a University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) professor of biochemistry and biophysics, called the machines “mutagenic” and allowed that “there is good reason to believe that these scanners will increase the risk of cancer to children and other vulnerable populations.”
Nipplitaliano declared these risks “within acceptable parameters. Anyone who gets cancer from the scans will die years, maybe decades, from now. Besides, people who’re concerned about radiation can opt for a ‘pat down.’” These pat downs include manual probing of the passenger’s genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh and buttocks. Persons who leave the airport rather than submit to either the scanner or the pat down search—as John “don’t touch my junk” Tyner did—may be fined up to $11,000.
Cynics suggest that the real “more important purpose” may be the purchase of the scanners themselves. The Government has reportedly committed to investing $800 million in the devices, which, as it turns out, are manufactured by a company called Rapiscan, whose CEO, Deepak Chopra, made the maximum legally allowable donation to President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign.
Ironically, Nipplitaliano is said to be weighing the possibility of exempting Muslim women from the enhanced search protocol. “Having their bodies seen or touched by unbelievers is a grievous transgression in their religion,” Nipplitaliano observed. “Forcing them to comply might essentially be barring them from flying. That would be unfair discrimination.”
In related news, US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is said to be pushing the idea of using archived scan images as a possible revenue generator. “A lot of people pay a lot of money to view naked pictures over the Internet,” Geithner observed. “We’ll have a steady supply to feed into this market. Or we could agree to withhold certain images from the market in exchange for a fee. Either way, it would be money we could get without having to go to Congress for an appropriation.”
read more...
http://azconserv1.wordpress.com/2010/11/20/tsa%e2%80%99s-violation-of-constitution%e2%80%99s-4th-amendment-necessary-and-proper/
ping
They have to get over this hurdle to make it easier once the government go door to door collecting firearms in the name of National Security.
According to Mark Steyn, Janet Incompetano has started a new dance craze, the Enhanced Pat Down.
A lot are going to fall for this one.
On Drudge; scroll down to the 13-minute video. Send to your address list and your elected Elitist. It’s worthy of all of us listening and sharing with everyone else:
Under the guise of safety and health this government means to rule us with an iron fist. We live in scary times!
I want scanners on the BORDERS!!! SCANNERS ON THE BORDERS.!!!
“...Either way, it would be money we could get without having to go to Congress for an appropriation.” “
:)
Another end run around Congress eh. Wouldn’t put it past them LOL.
Thanks for the chuckle John.
(Image found in google, link contains the source.)
Do you recon she swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution?
“I want scanners on the BORDERS!!! SCANNERS ON THE BORDERS.!!!”
Screw that. Put the gropers on the borders.
legalized Sex offenders.
Ironically, Nipplitaliano is said to be weighing the possibility of exempting Muslim women from the enhanced search protocol. “Having their bodies seen or touched by unbelievers is a grievous transgression in their religion,” Nipplitaliano observed. “Forcing them to comply might essentially be barring them from flying. That would be unfair discrimination.”
But violating the Constitution is ok.
“In a perfect world everyone’s rights can be respected,” she said. “But sometimes we have to put aside strict adherence to the Constitution if a more important purpose is to be served.”
Hey dyke, Separation of Church & State. How about that one? Remember? The biggie y’all b*tched about?
****************
The reasons our civil rights are INALIENABLE....
Ya know... GUARANTEED UNDER THE BILL OF RIGHTS...
Is so air-headed bureaucrats like you cannot treat American citizens LIKE THIS...
There is no "put aside strict adherence to the Constitution" except during wartime / martial law--
...Which DOES NOT EXIST AT THE AIRPORT.
There is no "more important purpose" than DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION and protecting the rights of free citizens --
...AN OATH you have taken-- Mme Secretary...
...and AN OATH you have gladly and wilfully BROKEN....
What a lyin' sack of liberal commie crap!!
***********
It is time for the free citizens of this country to do more than shout back at these usurpers of our rights...
We need exercise every legal and lawful means of the franchise, expression, influence, and legitimate action---
TO EXPEL these commie b*tches and b*st*rds from every nook and cranny of the federal government--
--Beginning with the immediate impeachment of the ILLEGAL IMPOSTOR...
Time to wake up folks...
These DIM-DHIMMI-DEMS are a much greater threat to our liberty and way of life than any bunch of muzzies who just want to meet their 72 virgils...
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Good one
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.