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.

[jd777]

I love it - one guy says if you don't want to be groped don't fly. You say if you don't want to be stopped by police officers, don't drive. Is this America?

But let me ask you a question, I'm a police officer. I stop you in your car. Can I open your trunk without your permission? I don't have a warrant.

[jd777]

Thank you.

[Bigh4u2]

“Put gamma and infrared radiation in there too”

It’s in there.

Indirectly, but should be sufficient.

“or aids in the creation of or views a representation of any part of a individual’s body covered by clothing”

[nathanbedford]

Ken, you obviously see that "unreasonableness" (I deliberately avoided saying "reasonableness" because the issue is whether the government is acting unreasonably) depends on the fact pattern. At no place on heaven or earth are we more vulnerable than the in the heavens in an airplane where a few ounces of explosive can bring catastrophe to hundreds of lives.

This is not the case, for example, in an open air football stadium so we might be more inclined to search backpacks and not crotches. The former is routinely done and is considered reasonable and the latter is not, because of the fact pattern. A pizzeria in Israel offers a fact pattern somewhere in between.

To deny the right to search crotches of people entering airplanes, where one could hide enough explosive there to bring down the airplane, is an entirely different matter. To deny fellow citizens that right is effectively to deny them the right to have their government search a backpack because either place could conceal enough explosive to kill everybody.

Please do not ask me what I think we have to do about cavity searches which is the logical extension of my position and for which I really do not have an answer. We better find better technology because I have no doubt the suicide murderers are prepared to go there next.

[RGSpincich]

Ron Paul - Pulling guard for the jihadists.

[drbuzzard]

>you can shoot a bomb?

To be quite honest, bombs are irrelevant. While it might sound callous, one airplane exploding is small change. Roughly 100 people die per day is auto accidents. Thus a big aircraft would have to explode every three days to match that carnage. This is, of course, extremely unlikely. However we live with that level of fatality in auto travel because we like our freedom to travel. The current idiotic level of airport screening is a cost/benefit nightmare, and is also downright offensive.

Now since we do still have a somewhat fresh memory of 9/11 it is worth noting that there wasn’t a bomb in sight. The planes were the bombs, and since we know of that trick now, an armed pilot, or watchful passengers are all we need to prevent a recurrence. One hit doing 3000 damage is worth of note, but as I said, the trick is spent and is easily preventable.

There is no excuse for the piling on by the O administration of further moronic infringements upon our rights beyond the utter stupidity pushed by the Bush administration. It is a clear example of CYA by bureaucrats. While the TSA might look bad if something goes wrong on an airplane, they are not responsible for the immense amount of wasted time (and the indignities suffered) by passengers.

[Lazamataz]

At no place on heaven or earth are we more vulnerable than the in the heavens in an airplane where a few ounces of explosive can bring catastrophe to hundreds of lives.

A large number of deaths, by car, slowly, is okay.

A amall number of deaths, by airplane, quickly, is unacceptable.

Got it.

[algernonpj]

FYI Israeli security is based upon profiling behaviour. Not only do the new scanners present a possible health risk (studies on safety have been inconsistent), but per Israeli expert scanners can be fooled:
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/207444-New-airport-security-scanners-a-waste-of-money-Israeli-security-specialist

El AL and Israeli airports have an impeccable flying safety record without sexually assaulting passengers.

The scanners and groping are merely street theater designed to divert your attention away from the facts that our northern and southern borders are sieves, immigration lacks the tools to perform accurate and timely security checks, and the executive branch has been facilitating flooding the country with legal immigrants from third world muslim countries (both pre and post 9-11). The added bonus is kicking up the temp on the frog in the pot.

[jd777]

Please do not ask me what I think we have to do about cavity searches which is the logical extension of my position and for which I really do not have an answer. We better find better technology

Yeah that's the extension of your position all right. Maybe Michael Chertoff can recommend something. I think you're scared. You're terrified of terrorism and it's clouding your judgment. You're panicking and throwing our nation and its rule of law away because you feel afraid. Meanwhile, your chance of getting killed on the way to the airport is far greater than that of getting killed by a terrorist on a plane. You act like if a bomb goes off on a plane, God forbid, it's going to be end the world. After 9/11, they actually had stop people from flying (everyone except the bin laden family of course) But as soon as the ban was over, people got right back on planes. Same after Pan 103 over lockerbie. People got on planes that day. Same with the Bus and Train line in London after 7/7. Those trains and buses are running right now. Picking up passengers. I bet someone is sitting in an israeli pizza place that was hit by a bomb in the past and they're having a slice of 'za. Life goes on. Not saying those aren't dreadful crimes. But as survivors we can't let anyone take away our nation from us - not unless we allow it. The solution to terrorism is to not be terrified.

The Statist and the Terrorist want to scare us for their own political ends. The terrorists want us out of their country. The government wants you to cede more power to them. But lucky for us our constitution doesn't flip a switch and panic every time some wackjob inserts a bomb in his booty hole. Or every time a policeman shines a flashlight in our eyes. The constitution is there, unchanging, to guide us as we face all threats foreign and domestic. And that's why it's worth fighting to protect.

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". Are you aware of what that entails? Never mind what you "want" so you can enjoy the illusion of safety. That's not what I want. And that's not what our founding fathers wanted for us either.

[cornelis]

And remind me what S510 is all about.

[freekitty]

Sounds good to me.

[Lurker]

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.

This may be the first time I've disagreed with you, but here it goes:

I don't give a frogs watertight bunghole what you want.

Blanket warrentless searches have been held un-Constitutional by every Court in this land up to and including SCOTUS. There's this tiny little thing called "probable cause" covered in that pesky 4th Amendment thingy we're discussing.

Warrentless searches are ONLY Constitutional if prior consent is given. Cops can't search your car or your home without a Warrant unless one allows it prior to the search.

There is absolutely no probable cause to suspect that every single person walking through an airport is a terrorist carrying a weapon. None.

[Lurker]

Excellent find my friend. Thank you.Notice they did not say “privilege”, the Statute says “right”.

[gogogodzilla]

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?

It is an unreasonable search for, as the 4th Amendment states, no search may be conducted without 'probable cause'. Probably cause must refer to the person being search, for a warrant must be issued... and warrants require names.

Therefore, one cannot search all peoples engaged in legitimate travel. One can only target those that show a probably cause for needing a search.

Arab Muslims, for example.

[gogogodzilla]

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

For example, the Baltimore-Washington International Airport is owned by the Maryland State Aviation Administration.

So it seems you are arguing that it is proper for government facilities to restrict the rights of the citizenry it exists to serve.

[CynicalBear]

>>your burden is a show that it is “unreasonable.”<<

Give me the number of bombs, incendiary devises, or truly terrorist type threats that the TSA has found on passengers since 9/11. And don’t give me the answer that we have no way of knowing. If they had justification for what they are now doing they would be publishing every incident widely.

Then give me the ones they didn’t find.

Reasonable? In the 9+ years since 9/11 not one proof that they have, with all of the encroachment of personal freedoms, found anything. I think it’s reasonable to conclude that Israel does a better job without the intrusion.

[gogogodzilla]

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.

First and foremost, however... before you can even get to the stage you describe, is whether law enforcement/government has any reason to suspect that the baby in question has indeed, a bomb in it's diaper. This is what constitutes the 'probably cause' in the 4th Amendment.

We already have good probably cause to suspect Arab Muslims are terrorists, for instance... due to who conducted 9/11.

Whereas there isn't any cause to suspect that Joe Smith's infant daughter from Topeka, Kansas would be a terrorist.

[gogogodzilla]

To deny the right to search crotches of people entering airplanes, where one could hide enough explosive there to bring down the airplane, is an entirely different matter. To deny fellow citizens that right is effectively to deny them the right to have their government search a backpack because either place could conceal enough explosive to kill everybody.

Pardon, but what version of the US Constitution do you have? I can seem to find the 'right to search' that you state is granted to governmental employees.

[nathanbedford]

In rummaging around trying to research this issue I ran across the following article, actually a press release issued by the ACLU, in which that organization acknowledges the right of the government to make searches for flight safety. Here is the relevant paragraph from my point of view:

“While we have never challenged the TSA’s basic authority to conduct safety-related searches, our concern was that TSA interpreted its limited authority to safeguard air travel as a license to conduct unlimited law enforcement searches for which TSA agents are not trained and which distracted from the agency’s critical mission of ensuring flight safety,”said Larry Schwartztol, a staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. “By reinforcing the constitutionally mandated limits on the TSA’s search authority, the new directives enhance the TSA’s safety-related mission.”

The article can be found here:

http://www.aclunc.org/issues/technology/blog/tsa_fixes_search_policy_after_aclu_sues.shtml

I also found the following study to be of interest:

Airline passenger security screening: new technologies and implementation issues

http://books.google.com/books?id=I0grAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=passenger+screening+constitution&source=bl&ots=LpNfKG0fFU&sig=nHNRcNR9QxJLmh9vzUMxWMFrdZ0&hl=en&ei=8FXlTOfyJtCWOqiH6N8K&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=passenger%20screening%20constitution&f=false

In general it is a fair analysis from both sides point of view even though written by the, National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Commercial Aviation Security. It's general conclusion is that the courts have consistently upheld screening procedures at airports under several doctrines. There is simply no requirement of probable cause to conduct these searches.

Anyone interested in reviewing these materials are referred to the link.

[Lurker]

It's general conclusion is that the courts have consistently upheld

Would these be the same Courts that upheld the 'right' of women to have the brains of an unborn child sucked out of it's head seconds before birth? Would these be the same Courts that upheld the 'right' of a municipality to take property from one owner and give it to another in order to enhance tax revue to said municipality?