Author Topic: Ron Paul Goes After the TSA (Read 3943 times)

Lost Farmboy · « **on:** July 04, 2011, 01:00:53 PM »

Congressman to re-introduce American Traveler Dignity Act this week

The bill contains just a short section that reads:

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.

Listen to Congressman Pauls update in full:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD70un65PO4

nw_hunter · « **Reply #1 on:** July 04, 2011, 05:48:03 PM »

There is no doubt Congressman Paul is a true patriot.He is the real deal, and this next primary election American conservatives will once again have a chance to elect the most level headed,Constitutional mind the country has seen since Barry Goldwater.

He is very "ELECTABLE" All you have to do, if you would like a real friend in DC in the Oval Office, is simply vote for him.With Paul as President with the kind of people he would bring in to replace the scum currently occupying space, the possibility of turning things around would become a reality.

If you want to see business as usual "Sliding down the slippery slope"Vote D. or the chosen bunch of the RNC. They are the same!

Junior1942 · « **Reply #2 on:** July 05, 2011, 04:14:21 AM »

You guys think ending airport security is "level headed"? Might as well save a lot of time and money and end all common carrier transportation. That's exactly what ending security will achieve.

powderman · « **Reply #3 on:** July 05, 2011, 04:31:09 AM »

junior. It's not about security, it's about the needless persecution, sexually molesting, embarassing, unnecessary treatment of AMERICANS. They have caught NOBODY, just disrespected millions of Americans. Satans disciples think it's funny cause they are the reason for all of this abuse. Thank a muslim. POWDERMAN.

nw_hunter · « **Reply #4 on:** July 05, 2011, 05:20:58 AM »

Quote from: Junior1942 on July 05, 2011, 04:14:21 AM

You guys think ending airport security is "level headed"? Might as well save a lot of time and money and end all common carrier transportation. That's exactly what ending security will achieve.

I would think you would be happy to see the TSA scrapped! After all, It was created under the Bush regime.

The TSA was created as part of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, sponsored by Don Young in the United States House of Representatives[2] and Ernest Hollings in the Senate,[3] passed by the 107th U.S. Congress, and signed into law by President George W. Bush on November 19, 2001.

Casull · « **Reply #5 on:** July 05, 2011, 05:21:52 AM »

Quote

(including contact with any clothing the individual is wearing

OMG, I think I agree with junior. As written, that piece of sh, er legislation, would keep airport security from patting down someone who set off the metal detector and a wand. No, it doesn't prohibit the pat down, but would you, as a TSA employee, be willing to risk being sued for patting someone down, even if they set off the metal detectors? There has to be some middle ground between the dumb a## stuff the TSA does now, and this not very well thought out attempt to end the abuses. Maybe old RP ain't quite as bright as some think.

BBF · « **Reply #6 on:** July 05, 2011, 05:56:02 AM »

If the Gate buzzes you then they can use the smaller hand wands to locate the specific spot. Then the passenger can produce the item unless it is an implant and further investigation may be needed IN PRIVATE.

Casull · « **Reply #7 on:** July 05, 2011, 06:01:03 AM »

Quote

Then the passenger can produce the item unless it is an implant and further investigation may be needed IN PRIVATE.

But, that investigation would be extremely limited by the "no touching rule" proposed by RP.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #8 on:** July 05, 2011, 06:18:31 AM »

You would have a medical card telling of implants or joints replaced issued by the Droctor or hospital that did the work. My mom has one as do several friends . In other countries where the threat is much greater they don't need to grope kids and women to get the job done. Its about control not safety .

Casull · « **Reply #9 on:** July 05, 2011, 06:31:44 AM »

Shootall, believe me, I have no love for the TSA and their current activities. They are clumsy thugs. But, that doesn't mean that RP is right. Clearly something in between is what is needed.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #10 on:** July 05, 2011, 07:08:00 AM »

Maybe so but the laws of the land should reflect the consitution . If we find the consitution does not work anymore then we can change it legally not pass illegal laws .

Casull · « **Reply #11 on:** July 05, 2011, 08:04:53 AM »

I haven't seen anything saying it was an illegal law, just that the thugs at the TSA have been overzealous (as in 3 stooges overzealous). If it is an illegal law, the SCOTUS will have to take care of it.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #12 on:** July 05, 2011, 09:05:44 AM »

how does it apply to our rights ? commerce clause etc.

Casull · « **Reply #13 on:** July 05, 2011, 09:22:04 AM »

Heck, Shootall, if you're going to go that route, MOST of the federal laws are illegal.

But, yes, I would think that commercial air travel would fall within the interstate commerce clause.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #14 on:** July 05, 2011, 10:53:09 AM »

then if so ( and I agree ) it violates free passage without serch ?

dukkillr · « **Reply #15 on:** July 05, 2011, 12:19:37 PM »

Quote from: SHOOTALL on July 05, 2011, 10:53:09 AM

then if so ( and I agree ) it violates free passage without serch ?

It isn't nearly that simple, although your theory is a common one. The problem is that you do not have a right to air travel. Thus, when you purchase a ticket, you do so subject to the restrictions and limitations included. One of those restrictions or limitations is that you will submit yourself to security screening. If you don't like submitting yourself to security screening you are free to show your displeasure by taking the bus, hiring a charter, or biking to your destination.

This isn't a defense of the TSA, just a clarification on a common misconception of Constitutional Law.

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #16 on:** July 05, 2011, 01:22:18 PM »

No, flying is not a right.

Tangentially related... when you step onto that aircraft, you're entering an area of heightened legal hazard. It is very easy to become a felon on an airplane these day.

Flying commercial sucks, and has for years.

powderman · « **Reply #17 on:** July 05, 2011, 04:34:42 PM »

duk. Right you are, but how many terrorists have been 95 yr old ladies in diapers, or 6 yr old girls with bombs in her panties?? If 2 peple are wanting to board, one an old lady in a walker, or a guy with a rag on his head wearing a backpack, who would you search??They should profile the crap out all those appearing mideastern. They don't like it?? Don't fly. Thank a muslim. POWDERMAN.

crustylicious · « **Reply #18 on:** July 05, 2011, 04:40:07 PM »

And don't forget Tim McVeigh. Let's also profile the crap out of anyone who looks like they've been in the Army

Casull · « **Reply #19 on:** July 05, 2011, 04:41:01 PM »

Profiling makes sense. It works. It should be common practice.

Casull · « **Reply #20 on:** July 05, 2011, 04:47:01 PM »

Quote

And don't forget Tim McVeigh. Let's also profile the crap out of anyone who looks like they've been in the Army

A lone example is an aberration, not a reason to profile. When we have white soldiers committing dozens of terrorist attacks over the span of a decade or more, then we can consider profiling them.

Doublebass73 · « **Reply #21 on:** July 05, 2011, 05:32:32 PM »

Flying may not be a right but we do have the following right wherever we go:

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.

Amendment IV is written in plain English just like the rest of the bill of rights. What part of "shall not be violated" do people not understand?

Lost Farmboy · « **Reply #22 on:** July 05, 2011, 05:54:26 PM »

Quote from: Doublebass73 on July 05, 2011, 05:32:32 PM

Flying may not be a right but we do have the following right wherever we go:

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.

Amendment IV is written in plain English just like the rest of the bill of rights. What part of "shall not be violated" do people not understand?

Shall not be violated is pretty simple. Probable cause seems to confound security, government and law enforcement.

Lost Farmboy · « **Reply #23 on:** July 05, 2011, 06:17:53 PM »

Quote from: Junior1942 on July 05, 2011, 04:14:21 AM

You guys think ending airport security is "level headed"? Might as well save a lot of time and money and end all common carrier transportation. That's exactly what ending security will achieve.

No one wants to get rid of security, just the porno scanners and sexual assaults. Security was adequate without them.

dukkillr · « **Reply #24 on:** July 05, 2011, 07:04:54 PM »

Quote from: Doublebass73 on July 05, 2011, 05:32:32 PM

Flying may not be a right but we do have the following right wherever we go:

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.

Amendment IV is written in plain English just like the rest of the bill of rights. What part of "shall not be violated" do people not understand?

Well, huh. There's obvious issues there. For instance you completely skipped the immediate few words before hand, "against unreasonable searches and seizures" but thats not the issue that gets you. The issue that gets you is that the protections granted to you in the Bill of Rights apply to governmental limitations. In the case of flying, you are making a personal transaction with another private agency. You know, or should know, up front what you are doing.

For instance, say I own an motorcycle rental company. I've discovered over time that many of my motorcycles come home with bullet holes in them. So I decide to change my policy and only rent to riders who agree that they will not carry a firearm. Now, you absolutely have a right to own a firearm, per the Second Amendment. But I have the right to negotiate my own private arrangements in my own business transactions. You don't have to like it, indeed you probably shouldn't, but that doesn't remove my right to manage my business as I see fit. Simply put, you don't have a right to my motorcycle. You can take it or leave it as you see fit.

If you want a deeper look into this area of the Fourth Amendment I suggest US v. Jacobsen:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=466&invol=109

Again, not a defense of the TSA, just a clarification on something that keeps getting repeated on the internet...

LunaticFringeInc · « **Reply #25 on:** July 05, 2011, 08:48:46 PM »

Quote from: Junior1942 on July 05, 2011, 04:14:21 AM

You guys think ending airport security is "level headed"? Might as well save a lot of time and money and end all common carrier transportation. That's exactly what ending security will achieve.

Your right Junior, the TSA is doing a fine job of protecting passengers and cargo by making senior citizens wearing depends take them off and humiliating cancer pactients under going Chemo to remove their hair pieces and knit caps, now if they could just also stop non citizens from passing through secuirty without a valid boarding pass/ticket and an ID that actually matches said Boarding pass/ticket then I might actually be impressed and think the hassel was worth the inconveince and humiliation that one goes through when passing through airport security. I mean lets face reality here...K-Mart does a better job of guarding thier Toothpaste on the store shelf than we do our National Security! Reality, what a concept...

Doublebass73 · « **Reply #26 on:** July 06, 2011, 08:37:10 AM »

Duk,

I see your point in the example that you brought up and also agree with it. Private business should absolutely have that right. If airlines were still using their own security I'd have no problem with them dictating the terms in order to board their planes. The issue I have is that the government dictated that the TSA is now in charge of the security of private airlines thus giving us the mess we have now. You are no longer allowed to fly with a private airline unless you get searched without probable cause by the government. I can't imagine that the founding fathers of our country would agree with this.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #27 on:** July 06, 2011, 09:00:19 AM »

Quote from: Doublebass73 on July 06, 2011, 08:37:10 AM

Duk,

I see your point in the example that you brought up and also agree with it. Private business should absolutely have that right. If airlines were still using their own security I'd have no problem with them dictating the terms in order to board their planes. The issue I have is that the government dictated that the TSA is now in charge of the security of private airlines thus giving us the mess we have now. You are no longer allowed to fly with a private airline unless you get searched without probable cause by the government. I can't imagine that the founding fathers of our country would agree with this.

YEP ! and as far as legal under the consitution Duk should be first to know to challenge requires a case and to lose might mean fine and jail time . Yes the govt. knows that the risk will insure no contesting in many cases . So in some cases we really don't know if its legal as it hasn't been tested in court.

nw_hunter · « **Reply #28 on:** July 06, 2011, 09:36:33 AM »

Quote from: dukkillr on July 05, 2011, 07:04:54 PM

Quote from: Doublebass73 on July 05, 2011, 05:32:32 PM
Flying may not be a right but we do have the following right wherever we go:

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.

Amendment IV is written in plain English just like the rest of the bill of rights. What part of "shall not be violated" do people not understand?
Well, huh. There's obvious issues there. For instance you completely skipped the immediate few words before hand, "against unreasonable searches and seizures" but thats not the issue that gets you. The issue that gets you is that the protections granted to you in the Bill of Rights apply to governmental limitations. In the case of flying, you are making a personal transaction with another private agency. You know, or should know, up front what you are doing.

For instance, say I own an motorcycle rental company. I've discovered over time that many of my motorcycles come home with bullet holes in them. So I decide to change my policy and only rent to riders who agree that they will not carry a firearm. Now, you absolutely have a right to own a firearm, per the Second Amendment. But I have the right to negotiate my own private arrangements in my own business transactions. You don't have to like it, indeed you probably shouldn't, but that doesn't remove my right to manage my business as I see fit. Simply put, you don't have a right to my motorcycle. You can take it or leave it as you see fit.

If you want a deeper look into this area of the Fourth Amendment I suggest US v. Jacobsen:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=466&invol=109

Again, not a defense of the TSA, just a clarification on something that keeps getting repeated on the internet...

I didn't know the airline industry implemented the TSA. I thought it was the FED

dukkillr · « **Reply #29 on:** July 06, 2011, 09:43:42 AM »

Not sure. I think the deal is that the airlines provided the screening historically and then post 9/11 the government attached some requirements of that security. Here in KC we still have private security even while most of the country has gone to TSA. A couple of weeks ago I flew a small charter with no security...

As always in these things, feel free to take your arguments to the courts. Don't like what I think the current reality is? Show up for a flight, refuse the screening, and file suit under a 4th amendment claim. I know what I think will happen, but I could be wrong... Let us know what happens.