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

sniping from the sidelines w/out actually contributing anything meaningful, i see.

 

the biggest revelation here is that TSA admits that they never even tested the body scanners to see if it would detect an 'underwear bomb'.

But whether the controversial AIT machine would even spot an underwear bomb is a matter of debate. TSA "never put it on someone and tested it," Mr. Pistole says. "I'm assured that . . . it's not a 100% guarantee but it gives us the best opportunity to pick it up."

 

Frequency:
TSA checkpoint: Mandatory.
Car checkpoint: Not mandatory, and although ok via the supreme court, often illegal in states (e.g. Texas although there is movement in the works to change this) and often requires public disclosure of the locations.

Invasiveness:
TSA checkpoint: A radiative scan resulting in a virtual strip search or ball-fondling escapades.
Car checkpoint: They might make you walk in a line or answer questions. Perhaps look in your car.

Effectiveness:
TSA checkpoint: Read this thread. Not effective past a practical point and stupidly expensive.
Car checkpoint: If you are drunk and drive through a checkpoint you will get caught. Costs virtually nothing.

I can't believe I just wasted my time actually replying to your absolutely ridiculous argument, but I hope you are satisfied enough to cease this nonsense and apologize for being so silly.

 

The TSA checkpoint and sobriety checkpoint both operate under the same principle of non-discretionary searches. Also by nature the TSA checkpoint has public disclosure of location.

Also require a breathalyzer and or blood test. Refusal to do so results in arrest. Refusal to submit to a TSA check results in not flying, although I think the "don't touch my junk guy" was arrested don't recall the charge though.

I agree the TSA checkpoints are not effective. At the sametime I question the sobriety check points effectiveness as from my own experience they stop a lot of people and relative to the number of people they stop I am not sure how many drunk drivers they catch. I haven't seen statistics though.

Again I will point out that you brought this up so perhaps again the ab absurdum comment should apply to yourself. As I said before you might've considered that a flippant comment but I think the legal basis of TSA searches is similar to the legal basis of sobriety and other discretionless checks and are relevant to the discussion.

 

One is basically random and easy to avoid. The other is impossible to avoid.

Oops. Yeah that's obvious. I meant that the "location provision" makes avoidance trivial.

They do not perform blood tests at the checkpoint (again, Texas centric). Both a breathalyzer and a blood test can only be forced upon you in very strict circumstances (I don't recall the details of this, I admit)...which is the not the case for the TSA ogle-festival.

11,000 dollar fine. And yes, you can find yourself in a whole heap of legal trouble if you make any sort of scene at the checkpoint. Google away.

It was flippant, but your argument is still not a rational comparison.

 

why are u still whining about this???? i thought u decided not to fly......why do u care anymore??? go away, u are invading our privacy

 

You have repeatedly pointed out you can avoid the TSA check point by not flying. For that matter if they do implement a frequent traveler program their might be other ways of avoiding them.

I don't know about Texas laws but I know some states have laws that require a breathalyzer at the point of being stopped and followed by a blood test at the station if you fail the breathalyzer. Some states have an either or. If you refuse a breathalyzer you are required to take a blood test at the station. That is the situation in MN.. Refusal for either results in arrest. In regard to the TSA not everyone goes through the scanners or pat downs. Like the situation with sobriety checkpoints its up to the officers to decide who gets checked by those procedures.

I don't doubt that happens but also causing a scene at a sobriety checkpoint can result in arrest on a few charges and loss of license. In general the consequences of a sobriety check point are far heavier than TSA screenings.

Except that was the comparison you raised otherwise why bring up driving at all? Anyway as I stated earlier in the thread regarding the discussion that you first raised on the nature of rights and the limits of government power this is completely relevant. As noted both driving and flying are not enumerated rights and the I think the ability of government to regulate people's ability to engage in them is a very important question which will frame any lawsuit in regard to these. From my own reading the Constitutional basis for TSA searches is grounded in the USSC cases like Stitz that says that sobriety checkpoints can be set up and conducted without discretion.

Just to editorialize as I have said before I don't like this policy but the Constitution implications mean that they could be expanded to trains and buses and etc.. Just saying that other transport methods are not comparable ignores that basis. Again I think this needs to be an issue for Congress to take up.

 

Because I have driven almost every day of my life since age 16 and have never experienced a checkpoint and I highly doubt I'm just lucky in this regard. From now on, every time I fly, I will be scanned or groped or both. Also, the court case for sobriety check points rested heavily on the idea that this was a permissible infringement (Rehnquist's words per wikipedia) of a right because of the state's interest in maintaining safety. Here we have damn near authoritative proof that what is being asked of the traveler is NOT contributing to a safer experience.

As to the rest of your post, I understand your take but sincerely disagree with both your interpretation and your attitude. That being said, thanks for the dialogue.

 

http://www.aolnews.com/weird-news/a...ico-feels-overexposed-after-tsa-scan/19745498

'Baywatch' Beauty Feels Overexposed After TSA Scan

(Dec. 6) -- A former "Baywatch" beauty is feeling overexposed after going through what she says was a humiliating body scan by Transportation Security Administration agents at Los Angeles International Airport.

Donna D'Errico, who was the Playboy Playmate in September 1995, says she got a few leers along with the scan and isn't happy about it.

D'Errico, 42, says the encounter occurred at LAX while trying to catch a flight to Pittsburgh with her son, Rhyan, 17.

"We were on our way to see Rhyan's aunt, who had just been put on life support in the ICU," D'Errico told AOL News in an exclusive interview. "My boyfriend and his business partner happened to be flying the same airline [American] on their way to New York for business. We got checked in and headed to security."

After waiting in a long line of holiday travelers, D'Errico and her son finally made it to the moving carrier where all the carry-on bags are placed. That's when a TSA agent took her by the elbow and told her she needed to "come this way."

"I said I was traveling with my son, motioning to him, and the agent said he was to come along with me as well," D'Errico said. "I immediately asked why we were having to go through an extra search, and no one else was being made to do so, indicating the long line of other passengers in front of and behind where we had been in line. In a very sarcastic tone, and still holding me by the elbow, the agent responded, 'Because you caught my eye, and they' -- pointing to the other passengers -- 'didn't.'"

D'Errico is still wondering how she caught his eye while others didn't.

"My boyfriend and his partner sailed through with no problems, which is rather ironic in that my boyfriend fits the stereotypical 'look' of a terrorist when his beard has grown in a bit, which it was that evening," she said.

Although D'Errico was a regular on "Baywatch" from 1996 to 1998, a period when it was one of the most popular shows worldwide, she doesn't know whether she was singled out because of her fame.

"I'm not sure whether they had recognized me or not," she admitted. "If they did, they didn't say anything. However, it is my personal belief that they pulled me aside because they thought I was attractive. My boyfriend, as I mentioned before, looks much more like a terrorist than either I or my son do, and he went through security with no problems."

The TSA rules regarding scans and searches dictate that passengers can select a scan or a search. D'Errico says that was never an option.

"They never even told me what they were doing at all, or that I had any choice," she said. "It was just, 'Stand here. Raise your arms above your head like this.' They never told me that they were going to be conducting a full-body scan, or that I had the option of being searched instead. Had they explained what they were doing, I would have opted for the search. As a matter of fact, my son was made to not only go through the full-body scan, but they also conducted a pat-down search on him as well.

"After the search, I noticed that the male TSA agent who had pulled me out of line was smiling and whispering with two other TSA agents and glancing at me. I was outraged."

So was her boyfriend, Roy J. Bank, the president of Merv Griffin Entertainment, who says he was in disbelief at what had just occurred.

"Anything that upsets Donna upsets me," he said. "I hated her being humiliated like that. I was genuinely shocked by both Donna and Rhyan being pulled aside for the extensive scanning.

"I'm all for measures to make us safer when traveling, but when it is so incredibly arbitrary, I don't feel any safer ... and I can promise you that her getting additional screening and the line full of people I saw around us not getting additional screening is not making us any safer!"

Although some might wonder why a woman who appeared nude in Playboy and wore a red bathing suit for three seasons of "Baywatch" is bothered about having one or two TSA agents see a computer scanned image of her naked body, but D'Errico says they are two separate issues.

"I must have overlooked the clause in both my Playboy and 'Baywatch' contracts stating that once appearing in that magazine, or on that show, I would forever be subject to being seen naked live and in person by anyone, at anytime, under any conditions, whether I agree to it or not, and for free," she said sarcastically.

"I posed for Playboy 15 years ago. I was on 'Baywatch' 13 years ago. Both of those were controlled environments, with proper lighting, makeup, etc., and were jobs. I contractually agreed to do both of those jobs. I could have stopped or changed my mind at any time. None of those conditions are present when TSA decides for you that you will consent to being scanned or felt up, or you simply won't be allowed your constitutional right to travel from one place to another freely."

TSA spokesman Nico Melendez thinks D'Errico's claims aren't accurate.

"If you see the images, you'll know it's not a naked picture," he said. "The passengers are selected at random and not because they're celebrities."

D'Errico also says that even though she has a higher profile than other people, she fears other women may be victims of this invasion of privacy.

"This could, and I'm sure does, happen to other women," she said. "It isn't right to hide behind the veil of security and safety in order to take advantage of women, or even men for that matter, so that you can see them naked. It's a misuse of power and authority, and as much a personal violation as a Peeping Tom. The difference is that Peeping Toms can have charges pressed against them."

Melendez says that the agents who are looking at the scan are in a closed room and have no communication with anyone other than the person handling the machine.

"It could be a woman or a man," he said.

D'Errico doesn't know of any other actresses or models who've had the same experience, but she believes other more effective and less invasive security measures should be implemented.

"One of my best friends was flying to New York for business, and at some point during the flight, she stood up to retrieve something from her bag in the overhead compartment," she said. "When she reached into her bag, something cut her hand. She looked into her bag and discovered a pair of 6-inch gardening shears which she had forgotten to remove prior to packing her bag.

"The bag, and my friend, had passed through security with no issues. How is this full-body scan supposed to be making us safer if 6-inch gardening shears can still make it aboard domestic flights undetected?"

 

ive been driving for over 15 years and have yet to encounter a roadside checkpoint.

ive also never been to a nuclear power plant.

but i do fly 3-5 times a year (or used to, at least).

 

The article on the baywatch chick evoked the mother-of-all "not surprised" faces from me. I would be absolutely enraged if I was her.

**** the TSA.

 

WAY TO GO AMERICA! WE DEFEAT THE TERRORISTS BY WETTING OUR OWN PANTS REPEATEDLY IN FEAR! LAND OF THE FREE, HOME OF THE BRAVE!



I really hate that so much of our policy is determined by the biggest cowards at the airport.

 

One of the pieces I have read on this travesty (from an OU student, of all things):

 

I fly about 5 -7 times a year on business or just vacation/travel. I didn't use to hate flying that much but now I just absolutely dread going to the airport and dealing with the zoo. If these new procedures were actually effective then maybe that is one thing but they are not and the article above I think summarizes everything up very nicely. The TSA is just being reactive.

 

haha opps quoted the wrong post above.. anyways thanks for the article rhadman..
at least the airport you traveled through didnt have the new machines and they didn't fondle your balls over thanksgiving.

TSA officials at SD airport were fondling breasts and balls.

 

I do in fact. However when in use I keep it closed. Also my ballsack isn't in it.

 

microwaving your balls

<div style="background-color:#000000;width:368px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><embed src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:southparkstudios.com:269214" width="360" height="293" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" base="." flashVars=""></embed><p style="background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><b><a href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s14e03-medicinal-fried-chicken">Medicinal Fried Chicken</a></b><br/>Tags: <a style="display: block; position: relative; top: -1.33em; float: right; font-weight: bold; color: #ffcc00; text-decoration: none" href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/">SOUTH<br/>PARK</a><a href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/episodes/s14e03-medicinal-fried-chicken">more...</a></p></div></div>

 

Well, that's changing.

 

That is not unusual except for it being at Wallmart. There have been announcements like that for years in all sorts of places.