Ron Paul: Cut out this Soviet-style nonsense

WorldNetDaily ^ | 11/17/2010 | Joe Kovacs

[nathanbedford]

You refer to the fourth amendment. I will cite the text:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If you admire Justice Scalia you will know that he will tell you that you have no right whatsoever to be protected from "reasonable" searches but only from "unreasonable" searches. Tell me, why is it unreasonable for me to ask that my government, as and when you choose to get on an airplane potentially with a bomb in your underpants and put me at risk of my life, to search your person especially when we have a history of people doing exactly that?

There is no place in which the federal government has broader scope under the Constitution as originally written and properly interpreted than in interstate commerce when the commerce is actual commerce between states or foreign powers, which modern commercial flight indisputably is. When our government concludes that it is "reasonable" to make these searches you had better have a very good argument why they are unreasonable. The burden is on you.

By the way, the burden is not just that you don't like it, or that you think there might be a better way, or that it's not perfect, your burden is a show that it is "unreasonable." That is, that there is no reasonable relationship to a legitimate legislative or regulatory end, such as saving lives or billions of dollars. Of course, the fact that you can avoid the search simply by not flying makes your burden even more difficult. It should be unnecessary to say that the events of 9/11 make your burden very difficult in the extreme.

Have at it

[ari-freedom]

You have the right to free speech but you don’t have the right to board an airplane. If you don’t want to be searched then don’t fly.

[ari-freedom]

The groping is unreasonable. That is something that I hope everyone agrees has to go.

[Rammer]

So you think it’s reasonable for the government to either take a naked picture of you or fondle your genitals?

You think it’s reasonable to do this to children?

You sure seem willing to give up our freedoms.

[ari-freedom]

“The Constitution is the LAW. You can not assign a police power to a private force and then circumvent the law. You wouldn’t accept a private security force taking away your right to free speech or the right to practice your religion. (1st amendment) - Or would you?”

Also, aren’t you saying that you are against allowing a private company, the airport, from protecting its own property?

[AmericanInTokyo]

Ronin,

Japan starting to run this story here and there.

Like HERE for example, from AFPBB, and Bloomberg Japan, CNN Japan and some other outlets. From their it will feed onto the other Japanese wires and major dailies and TV, no doubt.

My Japanese quote was pretty close, but they are translating the now famous "Don't touch my junk" as [ 俺のアレに触るな ] (ore no are ni sawaruna) .

When international news spreads of this, it's going to cost the United States, I can guarantee.

[nathanbedford]

The problem, Ari, is that it is outrageous but it is not unreasonable, that is, it is not unreasonable in a constitutional or legal sense. Everything that is offensive is not necessarily unconstitutional. If there is no other way to determine whether there is a bomb in a baby's diaper, it is not unreasonable for the government to inspect that diaper. Especially is that so when the people who complain of that inspection decline to be pictured with modern technology even though there are ways that their privacy can be assured. We know that Muslim fanatics are prepared to use their babies to kill people.

What is the alternative? We cannot have our planes blown out of the sky with 300 people aboard and billions of dollars at stake.

[nathanbedford]

That which is outrageous is not necessarily unreasonable in a constitutional sense.

[jd777]

1st test is 'reasonable'. You're correct there. I concede that point. But you forgot the 2nd test: CAUSE.

And by that I mean it shall be a JUST and PROBABLE CAUSE.

Did the metal detector go off when I walked through? Did a bomb sniffing dog alert an agent to the possible presence of explosives? Am I acting suspiciously? NO? Then you are not allowed to touch me or my child's genitalia. You got that?

[ari-freedom]

That’s the problem by banning profiling. We have to grope everyone and anyone just to show that we are fair even though the probability that person is a terrorist is nil.

[nathanbedford]

Posted just a few minutes ago:

Suspicious object found on Air Berlin jet (in Namibia)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2629110/posts

[snowsislander]

Japanese tourists are already tired of the first thing they see in the USA upon landing being intimidating TSA officials and Custom Agents yelling at the top of their voices and barking all kind of nazi -like unclear, confusing commands.

Yes, they are.

But, unfortunately for them and for us, the Kenyan Clown and his circus are determined to destroy our country and its proud institutions.

Losing Japanese tourists is counted as a victory by the Kenyan usurper and his pack of moochers. As long as they are first in the trough, they are happy enough to see our economy and our freedoms obliterated.

[snowsislander]

Like HERE for example, from AFPBB, and Bloomberg Japan, CNN Japan and some other outlets.

Thank you for the link.

[jd777]

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”.

[MayflowerMadam]

“I like Michael Savage’s suggestion that every member of Congress should be groped by the TSA and nude body scans of them posted on the Drudge Report.”

That could be ugly. I mean that literally. Imagine Pelosi’s wrinkly saggy boobs out there for everyone to see. Or Barney Frank’s junk. Shudder.

[Quickgun]

I happen to agree with you. The option to not fly is always there, although to put the airlines out of buisness would also be a victory for the terrorists. There is no easy solution to this problem.

[nathanbedford]

We are not talking about searches pursuant to a warrant rather we are talking about warrantless searches, a category of search that happens every day in America and is perfectly constitutional. If you want to avoid this search turn around and leave the airport. If you want to avoid a traffic stop set up by the police to catch drunk drivers, do not drive your car.

Every time I walk through the airport checkpoint the bells go off, the lights flash and the Marine Corps is summoned, because I have a stainless steel knee. I get everything but a coloscopy on the spot and I do not like it but I do not think that I have a constitutional right to object.

If you want to take your baby on the plane that I'm flying on I want that baby inspected without additional probable cause if the authorities so judge because I value my life more than your fastidiousness. You got that?

[Ken H]

Tell me, why is it unreasonable for me to ask that my government, as and when you choose to get on an airplane potentially with a bomb in your underpants and put me at risk of my life, to search your person especially when we have a history of people doing exactly that?

If you say that is reasonable, then would you also say it is reasonable that when you choose to go to a restaurant/movie theater/mall/park etc., potentially with a bomb in your underpants and put me at risk of my life, that the government may search your person?

If your answer is 'no', then explain why one is a reasonable search and the others are not.

[Lazamataz]

We are not talking about searches pursuant to a warrant rather we are talking about warrantless searches, a category of search that happens every day in America and is perfectly constitutional. If you want to avoid this search turn around and leave the airport. If you want to avoid a traffic stop set up by the police to catch drunk drivers, do not drive your car.

The searches are excessive and violate our rights to Common Carrier travel, such rights to travel as is codified in United States Federal Law, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 40103 : US Code - Section 40103: Sovereignty and use of airspace, to wit: “A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace.”