Ron Paul: Cut out this Soviet-style nonsense

WorldNetDaily ^ | 11/17/2010 | Joe Kovacs

[speciallybland]

With a week to go until the Thanksgiving travel peak and Americans' anger continuing to rise over heightened airport-security measures, a U.S. congressman launched legislation today to end what he calls Soviet-style searches by the American government.

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, introduced the Air Traveler Dignity Act to protect Americans from physical and emotional abuse by federal Transportation Security Administration employees conducting screenings at the nation's airports.

"We have seen the videos of terrified children being grabbed and probed by airport screeners. We have read the stories of Americans being subjected to humiliating body imaging machines and/or forced to have the most intimate parts of their bodies poked and fondled," Paul said.

"This TSA version of our rights looks more like the 'rights' granted in the old Soviet Constitutions, where freedoms were granted to Soviet citizens – right up to the moment the state decided to remove those freedoms."

Paul's legislation, H.R. 6416, is just two sentences long, stating:

No law of the United States shall be construed to confer any immunity for a federal employee or agency or any individual or entity that receives federal funds, who subjects an individual to any physical contact (including contact with any clothing the individual is wearing), X-rays, or millimeter waves, or aids in the creation of or views a representation of any part of a individual's body covered by clothing as a condition for such individual to be in an airport or to fly in an aircraft. The preceding sentence shall apply even if the individual or the individual's parent, guardian, or any other individual gives consent.

[nathanbedford]

As you know I have been more than ardent in my opposition to Roe vs. Wade. I have even written extensively a closely reasoned attack on Justice Ginsburg which I published here as a vanity and elsewhere as well. But there is a distinction to be observed between what is the state of the law and what ought to be the state of the law. I am simply trying to find authority to support the propositions that Freepers have so confidently asserted and I do not find it.

This is obviously going to be an emerging area of the law and technology as well as terrorist events will no doubt drive the law. Meanwhile, I do wish that Freepers would refrain the personal slaps stating that I have no respect for the Constitution, or words to that effect. As the article I cited states, ultimately this is a balancing act to determine the reasonableness. People of good will can differ on a standard of reasonableness. I am more concerned about preserving lives in the air and my conservative colleagues are more concerned about preserving dignity on the ground-which they would describe as the preservation of Constitutional rights. I'm all for preserving constitutional rights, when they are actually there.

[Lurker]

I realize that you're one of the good guys, sir. I'm simply arguing that absolutely no Constitutional authority exists to justify the wholesale sexual assault of thousands of US citizens on a daily basis.

Were I to set up one of those scanners in a public place and sent 14 year old girls through it I'd be in prison under the Child Pornography Statutes so fast my head would spin. Further there is NO Federal Statute that I've been able to locate which exempts the TSA from prosecution for those crimes.

I'll further argue that while you may feel safer you are in fact not. This is all a bunch of Kabuki theater designed to reassure rather than actually reduce the threat.

In the meantime it's a multi-billion dollar yearly drain on our economy and even worse than that it's conditioning a formerly free people to become a bunch of bleating sheep.

And I'll not stand for it quietly.

[ari-freedom]

“{I’m sorry. You can’t break the law in order to “protect” me. 18,000 people get murdered each year in this country. It sucks. I wish it wasn’t so. But you can’t break the law in order stop those deaths. I can’t go to your house and take away your gun (and your dinner knives) and put a Swat team in your living room just to make sure you’re “safe”.”

No, but if you were to come to MY house, I would then have the right to tell you to put your gun away.

[ari-freedom]

“Most airports aren’t private, but owned by the city or state... making them public institutions.”

Even if that’s the case, the airplanes themselves are private and the airline companies should be able to protect themselves.

[jd777]

That home is your private property and if I resisted you could have an officer of the law by right and force make me leave, . He would also have just cause to see in what capacity did I own this gun.. Hey, I'll be honest - I'd be honored to be invited to your fellow FR's home. And we would n't have any proikem to begin with.

Your post's aren't to my liking - but hey nobody's perfect. See ron paul "enough is enough" Im with him on this. And it's a battle cry.

[ari-freedom]

“That home is your private property and if I resisted you could have an officer of the law by right and force make me leave, . He would also have just cause to see in what capacity did I own this gun.. Hey, I’ll be honest - I’d be honored to be invited to your fellow FR’s home. And we would n’t have any proikem to begin with. “

I probably would let you bring your gun because I love all freepers :) Of course, airlines have to deal with millions of strangers everyday from all over the world.

Now, in the case of a courthouse I would have to admit that the 4th amendment would pose a BIG problem for a scanning policy.

[gogogodzilla]

No argument there. I’d prefer that TSA be disbanded and there be security provided by each individual airline based on what they would find a reasonable balance between convenience and security.

Unfortunately, we had the government usurp that role and in the process, spend billions of our tax dollars.

[jd777]

I noticed while arguing for the new unconstitutional TSA procedures you slipped in a link to this thread about a suspicious device found on an airplane- Thanks for that update> But GUESS WHAT? - It was fake and it was made by a US firm.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1331261/German-aeroplanes-bomb-scare-revealed-security-test--knows-did-it.html

[nathanbedford]

Thank you for the update and I have another update for you, the manufacturer of the device says he has no idea where the device went in the four years after it passed out of his control and he has no idea how it got to Africa. Was the device a test by the good guys? Normally they stop at the airport before the plane takes off. Was it a test by the bad guys? Sorry for the lack of a link, I think this can be found in the John Batchelor audio podcasts.

This report together with other intelligence has thrown Germany into a spiral of very heavy reaction by the army and the police all over Germany, not just at airports, but in public places and hotels etc.

The lesson I take from this is how vulnerable is our modern civilization to rather primitive attacks in this asymmetrical war. One wonders how much this reaction to a real or imagined threat in Germany has cost the taxpayers here. My wife is about to return from America to Germany and the question is, what sort of passage will she have as a result of this?

At least I will have the comfort of knowing that her fellow passengers have been properly scanned (hoping Miami has such scanners) and the risk of some fellow passenger killing her with an explosive tucked in underwear, diapers, or under habits has been reduced.

[jd777]

Nobody can rationalize like you my friend. Now go give yourself a pat-down!

[nathanbedford]

You are insufferable and a sniveling little shit.

Nobody can rationalize like you my friend. Now go give yourself a pat-down![your post #110]

This is what passes for conservatism these days. [Your reply #50] in a derisory (inferred) tone.

You got that? [Your reply number 70] this time a belligerent tone.

Yeah that's the extension of your position all right. [Your reply #89] this time a cheap shot against one who is acknowledging another side to the argument. But you do not have the good grace to treat it that way, because you're a cheap shot artist so you capitalize on any intellectually honest statement of your interlocutor.

Now you depart from your belligerent tone and assume in the same reply an apologetic tone:

"I'm sorry if this post sounds like I'm attacking you or I'm being callous about peoples deaths, but I was offended when you said if I got on a plane with you, you want my child "inspected"."

Because of this last remark of yours I refrained from responding to this and other of your ad hominem, remarks because I felt that you were exercised on the issue and should be permitted a certain amount of latitude and because you had begged my pardon in so many words.

I noticed while arguing for the new unconstitutional TSA procedures you slipped in a link [your reply # 99]

I did not "slip"anything to the contrary I made a proper and legitimate citation and supplied the link. I passed this slight up as well as all the others. Please take note of your tone in this reply it is condescending and demeaning.

As I said at the beginning of this post, you are a sniveling little shit. But this last post is the limit:

Nobody can rationalize like you my friend. Now go give yourself a pat-down![your post #110]

I have turned the other cheek and taken all I'm going to take from you. My forbearance is over. Argue on the merits or bugger off. I do not have time to deal with twits and insufferable little shits like you who resort to the ad hominem who think they can persuade people by condescension and cheap debating tricks. You demean yourself and, worse, you bring down this forum with your crap. Just stop it.