Posted on 11/19/2010 9:56:29 AM PST by Virginia Ridgerunner
Rep. Ron Paul took to the house floor to introduce legislation against the invasive screenings of the TSA.
During his speech, Paul denounced former Homeland Security chairman Michael Chertoff and big companies making money off of airport scanners and said that the American people were being treated like cattle.
"The argument from the executive branch is that, when you buy a ticket you have sacrificed your rights and that the duty of the government is to make us safe." said Paul, "That isn't the case, you never have to sacrifice your rights. The duty of the government is to protect our rights, not to use them and do what they have been doing to us."
Video at link.
The “American Traveler Dignity Act”
A BILL
To ensure that certain Federal employees cannot hide behind immunity.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NO IMMUNITY FOR CERTAIN AIRPORT SCREENING METHODS.
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.
Yeah and he was right when he railed against the creation of the TSA way back when. I am a Ron Paul fan.
Well that won’t do. We need about 920 more pages for anything to pass in Congress.
The TSA began hijacking our freedoms the day they started the “security” crap at the airports many years ago. Some of us bi**hed about it then but didn’t get much response. Fedzilla was conditioning us to accept more and more restrictions on our freedoms from day one.
But, of course, say you, didn’t their system of NOT PROFILING do a splendid job by keeping those 19 muzzies off planes on 9-11? Goodness, if they hadn’t been stopped, they might have killed over 3,000 people, knocked down buildings and...
Oh, never mind.
It begs a question of anyone who has a real-world grip on how governments — ALL governments — operate:
“Did anyone really think the situation would get better for the traveling public?”
Having said that, this airport “training” of the public is essential to the success of Obozo’s planned National Defense Corps street patrols. Can you say “Show me your papers” in ebonics?
“Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” (William Pitt, 1759 1806)
The FedGov has a role because planes, as was demonstrated on 9/11, can be turned into guided missiles with just a few men armed with box cutters. The job of the FedGov isn't so much to protect the passengers - they, after all have "come to the hazard" - but to protect the people on the ground that didn't assume the risk when they boarded the aircraft.
Paul, per usual, is big on bloviating, but pretty short on solutions. What will the practical legal effect of Paul's bill be? It will be an all-hands invitation for every ambulance chasing personal injury lawyer in the country to make their new fortunes suing on behalf of "screening victims". Who's going to pay for this new "Lawyer Full Employment and Compensation Act"? You are, the US Taxpayer. Congratulations Ron, another job well done.
If you commit crime, you have to be searched, for any number of reasons, what crime did any of these travelers commit? Answer is none, therefore they need to quit copping a feel, or taking dirty pictures they may share with their weirdo friends.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
For elected officials:
"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power." - Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack
Flyers have reason to be mad right now.....until a plane blows up then we will be wondering why the bomber wasn’t caught and the TSA was too busy feeling everyone up.
I don’t know what the answer is but saw this coming when the ‘Rats wanted TSA to be all union.
To start with, it’s sheer folly to think that responsibility for your personal safety can be successfully delegated to some surrogate - not the police, not the federal government, not even a personal bodyguard. We ALL must maintain situational awareness where our own continued well-being is concerned.
The federal government has no obligation for our personal safety. None. But lazy or brain-dead people demand it, and this gets used as an excuse to violate our most sacred rights.
However, the federal government DOES have the obligation to protect the country against all enemies foreign and domestic, including those who enter illegally and those who would impose Sharia law by force upon us.
The TSA should be immediately disbanded, and airport security should be the sole province of the airport authority and local law enforcement, using techniques as proven by the Israelis to weed out any threats.
Should any miscreant actually make it aboard an airliner, it’s the responsibility of the flight crew and passengers to neutralize the threat. If this sounds like it won’t work, consider the recent actions against would-be terrorists by passengers following the example of the heroes on Flight 93.
All mechanized transport has some inherent risk. We’ll never remain a free society and eliminate ALL risks EVERY time. We can’t have both, AND retain our liberty. I’m willing to assume the responsibility for my own safety if threatened by some jerk in the next seat. I would hope that my fellow passengers would feel the same way. And with a few armed Air Marshals in the mix, a would-be terrorist could never know which flights were best for targeting.
Do we really want to be a nation of passive sheep, bleating our ineffective complaints as we are forced to endure invasive, oppressive, and unconstitutional personal assaults under the color of authority? Or are we willing to do what it takes to be free men and women?
Here’s a question no one seems to ask. If our security measures before the full-body scan worked, that is if the then existing pat-down was successful, why is it NOW necessary to change those pat-downs? Why, now that we have body scans which you can refuse, are they ‘enhancing’ their pat-downs?
Maybe they don’t want you to do pat-downs, maybe they want the full use of body-scanners. Can you say, ‘we need more machines, then we can pay back all those guys who are getting rich off selling them to us, for all their support’?
Whether that is true or not, my original question is relevant, why, if the previous pat-downs worked fine when we had metal detectors rather than body-scans, is it necessary NOW to change how pat-downs are done?
How many bombs have the TSA found?
I don't agree with much of what Ron Paul says but he's absolutely dead on right here!
Too bad the Congressman doesn't feel the same way about the rights of children who haven't passed through the birth canal yet.
Are you unfamiliar with the Christmas Day bomber that almost successfully detonated enough PETN (sewn into his underwear, right next to his "junk") to rip a 25' hole in the plane?
Metal detectors don't detect plastic explosives. And, some plastic explosives - like PETN - are virtually undetectable by current measures (like canines or electronic sniffers), if handled and packaged correctly - like the Christmas Day bomber's was.
Because of these technological and physical limitations, the only ways to theoretically detect these kinds of explosives are either with more "aggressive" hand searches, or these back-scatter scanners.
Why are the scanners more preferable to the pat-downs? Money, as in it, over the course of several years, will be much less expensive and time consuming to use the scanners, rather than "frisking" each passenger.
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.
The democrats are gleeful that America is populated by ignorant people such as yourself.
None that I'm aware. Of course, because no airplanes have blown up that have departed from US airports, one might also conclude that there have been no bombs to detect. See how that works? It's tough to find something that's not there. You might think that someone with the name "logical me" would under stand that kind of deductive reasoning.
The Christmas Day bomber was not screened by TSA. He was screened in the country of original departure, wherever that was.
There have been many people arrested, indicted and convicted in the 9-years since 9/11 for trying to smuggle contraband materials onto aircraft, including some bomb-making materials.
Cool - maybe they’ll start screening drivers too - after all it’s not our right to drive. Just walk - wait - is that a right?
The next time you're in Washington DC, you should try and visit the Capital Building. Let me know if they try to search your belongings before you enter the building. When you refuse - because a "smart guy" like yourself will clearly make a principled stand - please let us know how it all works out, OK sport?
Yes, I am familiar with the Christmas Day bomber. What has that to do with the change in pat-down. Do you mean that it’s been OK and safe to have the original pat-downs for the last year, but now somehow the ‘enhanced techniques’ are needed? That makes no sense. And, are you familiar with the fact that ‘our’ pat-downs would have done nothing since he was on a flight from Amsterdam?
Explosive Detection System (EDS) machines can detect PETN and other chemicals, the problem is they are very expensive.
So, again, my question is the same, why for the last year, if you are using the Christmas Day bomber as the reason, were the existing pat-downs fine until we got body scanners so now we have to have ‘enhanced pat-downs’?
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.