Ron Paul Responds to TSA: Introduces 'American Traveler Dignity Act'

Another great moment from the geniuses at the TSA, via boing boing:

[rquoter]

Another TSA Outrage

As the Chalk Leader for my flight home from Afghanistan, I witnessed the following:

When we were on our way back from Afghanistan, we flew out of Baghram Air Field. We went through customs at BAF, full body scanners (no groping), had all of our bags searched, the whole nine yards.

Our first stop was Shannon, Ireland to refuel. After that, we had to stop at Indianapolis, Indiana to drop off about 100 folks from the Indiana National Guard. That’s where the stupid started.

First, everyone was forced to get off the plane–even though the plane wasn’t refueling again. All 330 people got off that plane, rather than let the 100 people from the ING get off. We were filed from the plane to a holding area. No vending machines, no means of escape. Only a male/female latrine.

It’s probably important to mention that we were ALL carrying weapons. Everyone was carrying an M4 Carbine (rifle) and some, like me, were also carrying an M9 pistol. Oh, and our gunners had M-240B machine guns. Of course, the weapons weren’t loaded. And we had been cleared of all ammo well before we even got to customs at Baghram, then AGAIN at customs.

The TSA personnel at the airport seriously considered making us unload all of the baggage from the SECURE cargo hold to have it reinspected. Keep in mind, this cargo had been unpacked, inspected piece by piece by U.S. Customs officials, resealed and had bomb-sniffing dogs give it a one-hour run through. After two hours of sitting in this holding area, the TSA decided not to reinspect our Cargo–just to inspect us again: Soldiers on the way home from war, who had already been inspected, reinspected and kept in a SECURE holding area for 2 hours. Ok, whatever. So we lined up to go through security AGAIN.

This is probably another good time to remind you all that all of us were carrying actual assault rifles, and some of us were also carrying pistols.

So we’re in line, going through one at a time. One of our Soldiers had his Gerber multi-tool. TSA confiscated it. Kind of ridiculous, but it gets better. A few minutes later, a guy empties his pockets and has a pair of nail clippers. Nail clippers. TSA informs the Soldier that they’re going to confiscate his nail clippers. The conversation went something like this:

TSA Guy: You can’t take those on the plane.

Soldier: What? I’ve had them since we left country.

TSA Guy: You’re not suppose to have them.

Soldier: Why?

TSA Guy: They can be used as a weapon.

Soldier: [touches butt stock of the rifle] But this actually is a weapon. And I’m allowed to take it on.

TSA Guy: Yeah but you can’t use it to take over the plane. You don’t have bullets.

Soldier: And I can take over the plane with nail clippers?

TSA Guy: [awkward silence]

Me: Dude, just give him your damn nail clippers so we can get the f**k out of here. I’ll buy you a new set.

Soldier: [hands nail clippers to TSA guy, makes it through security]

This might be a good time to remind everyone that approximately 233 people re-boarded that plane with assault rifles, pistols, and machine guns–but nothing that could have been used as a weapon.

[/rquoter]

 

You're trying to claim that things that are unconstitutional (Dred Scott?) are not unconstitutional as long as the courts say so. The courts are not some perfect arbiter of the constitution, they get it wrong all the time. Don't get me wrong - your argument is an accurate technicality, but it's also silly inasmuch as we are capable of discussing the document intelligently ourselves and so far as we acknowledge the courts fallibility.

 

I've changed my position on this (somewhat).

On privacy -- the images may be unnecessarily graphic. These are computer renderings, so there's no reason they have to be so 'life-like.' The image could appear as a 'grid' or other form so that the guys at gawker don't get their rocks off if they see them. And they do need policies on storage, sight lines, and procedure developed with passenger privacy in mind. Possibly the ones they have need to better applied or tweeked. As with too many things technology related (hello facebook and google) individual privacy can be inadvertently (or not) over looked.

On safety -- Absolutely should be reviewed. I do have to defer the assessment to those gov't bodies that do that sort of thing for everything from cell towers to water safety. (Check out this site for fun: www.antennaseach.com). And i think that, generally, radiation safety has been under reviewed -- but this isn't unique to these scanners. (and, unlike cell towers they put up next to schools, I can avoid the scanners if I want).

On necessity -- Again, I have to defer, somewhat, to the agencies that deal with these sort of things as to whether these things are effective or excessive. I doubt it's unconstitutional when you voluntarily present yourself, and your luggage for search (as has been the case for decades) in a situation where there's a reasonable reason for a search. Whether the 'underwear guy' would have been caught isn't as relevant as to whether new plastic weapons made the old scanners that could only detect metal useless. Cost/inconvenience/security/practicality. But I'm not a constitutional or security export despite reading this forum, and occasionally even checking out the linked articles. But the idea that a scanner could be upgraded from the ones in use decades ago, doesn't seem too crazy.

On the happy go lucky guys at Airport Security -- Some of yo guys need to chill the F out. Seriously. The world is a happier place when you treat the person at airport security, or driving the cab, or cleaning the hotel room, vacuuming your office, picking up trash on the street, showing you to your seats at an event, or doing any other job you deem yourself too privileged, educated, worthy, and dignified, to do. They're just doing a job. Probably a job that could teach you a little well needed humility if you didn't consider yourself too virtuous to do.

 

that's a pretty funny story Otto:

I had to hand over a key chain pocket knife with a 1 inch blade (if that) when I went to an Olympic hockey game this spring. I was also carrying a flag with a two foot metal pole and sharp pointy end .... and that was perfectly OK!

 

Nice little article that summarizes the debate:

 

wow this whole thing is so stupid. I can see terrorists start recruiting children under 12 now.

 

Unbelievable that few see the precedent being set here. If we abide by this, we'll all be having freaking exploratory surgery to fly, before it's all said and done.

 

Yeah, not to mention that his argument is predicated on the machines being effective, which they are not - as the latter part of the article (and many others like it) demonstrates.

 

Thank you

 

Damn.

This argument is a slippery slope nightmare.

 

Generalize much? I do you hold the guy working the drive-thru at McDonalds responsible for the processed chicken in chicken McNuggets?

As I said before there might be a pervert or two in the TSA but I highly doubt the vast majority of them are in it to ogle and grope. The guy working the airport isn't the one who makes policy. It is petty to blame them for something they have as much say in as you do.

 

I agree the current system is ineffective but that is a technical argument not an argument in legality. The first sentence of the US Constitution empowers the government to provide for common defense.

Rep. Paul also brings that up but that is a very flawed argument. The government can do all sorts of things that an average citizen cannot. You cannot pull someone over for speeding or search them if you think they have contraband. This argument saying that any average person can't go up and grope someone so TSA officials shouldn't misses the point that TSA as a part of government is engaged in an activity meant to provide for our common defense. That is an activity mandated by the Constitution.

Do you agree that the government is empowered to provide for common defense?

The problem with the argument as presented, which even though you didn't write I presume you agree with, is that it cherry picks the Constitution. The argument is correct that the Constitution is a limit on government power the problem though is that it takes that and expands on it to the point that would handicap the ability of the government to do almost anything. For instance it says that air travel isn't a Constitutional right, true, but that means that the government cannot interfere with it since the Constitution is a restriction on government rights. Taking that logic though then almost anything not specifically mentioned in the Constitution the government would have no say it. Now while I am sure there are many Originalists who would argue that but consider that would mean then that the government has no right to regulate nuclear power, bio-engineering, and etc.. I doubt that you accept that sort of logic.

The Constitution not only grants but compels the government to act in our common defense. While there are barriers erected to its powers in terms of the Bill of Rights you can't expand those barriers to the point to say that government cannot take action for common defense especially in areas that are not enumerated and take place in the commons, like air travel.

At the same time the government doesn't compel people to travel by air and air travel is only practical due to government built infrastructure, air ports, radar network, FAA and etc.. IN that sense a person preparing to go on a plane has already made a voluntary decision to put themselves in that situation.

I did which is why I pointed out that the 4th Amendment says that searches and seizures that are not unreasonable can take place. This a subjective term that is dependent on context. Given that terrorist act on an airplane could lead to the death of thousands then it wouldn't necessarily be unreasonable to take stronger security measures. Also as a subjective term it is one that is dependent upon societal context, the polls I've heard cited say that a large majority of air travelers aprove of these measures.

Just to cite some case law. In Michigan v. Sitz and Delaware vs Prouse the USSC allowed for discretionless checkpoints to check for things like intoxication and registration. These essentially amount to warrantless searches that do not require even probably cause. In US vs. Martinez-Fuentes the USSC allowed for discretionless immigration checks. Also in special regard to things like airports the border search exception explicitly removes the 4th Amendment protections in regard to search and seizures.

Again I will repeat I don't like this policy. I think it is ineffective, an intrusion on privacy and a waste of money. I think to a certain extent we need to accept the odds that terrorism is an extremely rare event and that such drastic measures are not worth it given the odds. My argument though is that I don't think these are unconstitutional and it seems to me that people arguing against this on a constitution basis are selectively reading into. In my opinion this policy should be removed through an executive directive or even better by action of Congress than through the courts.

 

I just went through security at DIA. I went through the xray, but I was wearing a belt, so then they said they had to give me a pat down as well

 

If it's ineffective it's unreasonable, I would argue.

It's not flawed, it just needs to be carefully stated. Saying that the constitution only restricts government authority is not true obviously, and I regret if such was implied. The point was that the folks arguing "air travel is not a right" are totally not understanding the idea behind the constitution - it's not there to define only what's a "right" - everything within the purview of Locke (depending on your interpretation) is inherently a right and the government is restricted in how it can regulate those rights.

The rest of your post basically furthers the argument stated above and so I think I have addressed it adequately above. As I mentioned to Major though, relying on the courts to decide this is dubious; it appears that you agree with me in that regard. In my humble opinion this search technique fails the "unreasonable" clause for both rational and ethical reasons as I have outlined in this thread. Whether or not the courts do anything about it is another issue entirely. I will say however that any arguments in support of this inherently march us down a very slippery slope. There is no way around that, since we have now breeched the usually sacrosanct idea that one's body is, by definition, private.

 

i just did - i called them liars who cannot be trusted.

this is just ridiculous in the context of a discussion about naked body scanners and groping.

as you say, 'That doesn't mean reasonable skepticism is unwarranted'. you obviously disagree, but i think it is perfectly reasonable to be skeptical when the government says they have to naked body scan you and sexually molest you to keep you safe from "the terrorists" - skepticism is even more warranted when in the last couple weeks our own government admitted to giving thousands of people syphilis and our previous president admits to war crimes and gets away with it.

 

i have been personally disrespected and insulted by the TSA so much that i reached the point where i just hate them all. i dont even feel like getting into any stories b/c it would just be one long multi-page rant.

whether its been getting in my face and challenging me on where ive been.
accusing me of wearing multiple pairs of pants and socks and insisting on patting down.
spending 30 minutes tearing apart my luggage and spreading everything out on a table and when done just walking away, leaving me to put my stuff back together and not even saying "thank you".
taking books and papers and tearing through them page-by-page.
having two agents take my digital camera on a return trip from europe and spend at least 5 minutes looking through all of the pics on said camera.

i could go on...

 

they are the ones who generalize when the treat us all like criminals. they prejudge me, so i will prejudge them.

no, but if i go through 5 different mcdonalds drive-thrus and the guys working the counter are all dicks, then i might assume that only dicks work at mcdonalds.

i blame them for the way they act and treat us. again, i have had way to many negative experiences w/ them - its unacceptable. cops are not allowed to treat us the way the TSA does and they have far, far, far more training.

this is true and really is the crux of the argument...what constitutes 'unreasonable'? to me, naked body scanning and sexually molesting people is 'unreasonable' - its really a no-brainer as far as im concerned and i find it incredibly disturbing to see so many people are defending this. and for the tenth time, if the government followed through on security procedures already in place the underwear bomber or the 9/11 hijackers would have never gotten on the plane.

like major, you act like those of us against it are arguing solely on constitutional grounds, when its really so much more than that...and what is odd is that both you and major agree with us that it is "ineffective, an intrusion on privacy and a waste of money" (these are points we have repeatedly made, btw) and that you dont like it...but both of yall have spent so much time here arguing for them - i dont get it?

 

I don't get it either. Especially from Judoka. Major has a penchant for rationalization regardless of merit, but Sishir is usually more critical.

I regret taking us down the path of constitutionality - as you say it's really not necessary to make the argument. Of course, I have not seen a good argument that this is not an egregious illegality either.

 

[rquoter]
Pilots get exemption on X-rays, pat-downs

By Tony Pugh
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — After weeks of pressure from pilot unions over new airport-screening measures, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has agreed to exempt pilots from enhanced pat-downs and full body scans, effective immediately.

The TSA said uniformed pilots for U.S. carriers and those traveling on airline business have only to provide their airline identification and another form of ID to TSA officers at airport checkpoints. The officers will check the credentials against a crew-member database that provides photos and other information to verify the pilots' employment status.

The move reverses a previous TSA policy that subjected pilots to full-body screening by X-ray or radio-wave scanners or pat-downs as part of a stepped-up effort to thwart terrorism.

A number of pilots' organizations said the new measures were burdensome, potentially risky, unnecessary and a violation of the long-standing trust between pilots and security personnel.

Pilots already have been through extensive FBI background checks, and the TSA has deputized thousands of them as federal flight-deck officers. These deputized pilots are authorized to carry weapons and can use deadly force while on duty to protect the cockpit from a terrorist attack, according to the Air Line Pilots Association.

"Pilots are trusted partners who ensure the safety of millions of passengers flying every day," said John Pistole, head of the TSA. "Allowing these uniformed pilots ... to go through expedited screening at the checkpoint just makes for smart security and an efficient use of our resources."

The policy change comes amid a growing furor over the stepped-up security measures. With some raising concerns about privacy and low-level radiation exposure, TSA is giving passengers the right to opt out of the full-body scanners and walk through a metal detector instead.

But those who decline to submit to the new scanning — and anyone who sets off a metal-detector alarm — will receive what TSA describes as a "thorough" pat-down designed to find the kinds of explosives a Nigerian man hid in his underwear last Christmas in an attempt to blow up a jetliner bound from Amsterdam to Detroit.

New rules call for agents to slide the fronts of their hands (instead of the back) over a passenger's body, including breast and groin areas. Screeners of the same sex do the pat-downs, and passengers can request that they be done in a private area.

For children younger than 12, TSA says it will do what it describes as a "modified pat-down" in the presence of a parent or guardian

Several lawsuits have been filed over the new policies, and other groups have called for a mass boycott of the machines and pat-downs the day before Thanksgiving, one of the busiest travel days of the year.

While the new security guidelines for pilots won't help aggrieved passengers, they'll quiet the growing criticism from pilots.

"We view this as a very welcome policy change," said Gregg Overman, a spokesman for the Allied Pilots Association, the collective-bargaining agent for American Airlines pilots.

The new system for pilots is modeled after a test program in place at airports in Baltimore, Pittsburgh and Columbia, S.C. Flight-deck crew members will still be subject to random screening and other security measures.

Capt. Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger, the pilot who safely landed his disabled aircraft in the Hudson River off New York City early last year and had earlier criticized the additional security measures for pilots, said he was heartened by the change.

"I am glad that the TSA is working with pilots as the trusted partners they are in this important security effort," he said.

Material from the Tribune Washington bureau and The Seattle Times archive is included in this report.

[/rquoter]