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

Not surprising. As I said before I think this policy is a waste of money and not making us safer. My disagreement though is regarding the Constitutional principles and also that I think in their opposition some are overreacting.

 

I guess this depends on how you define a technicality as this seems pretty important as from your own link it reads:
[rquoter]Moreover, the court mistakenly relied on Martinez-Fuerte, supra, and Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, to provide a basis for its "effectiveness" review. Unlike Delaware v. Prouse, this case involves neither random stops nor a complete absence of empirical data indicating that the stops would be an effective means of promoting roadway safety. [/rquoter]

They seem to be stating that there is empirical data supporting the effectiveness of the stops.

True except the court states it in rather subjective terms.
From your quote:
[rquoter]"We address only the initial stop of each motorist passing through a checkpoint and the associated preliminary questioning and observation by checkpoint officers. Detention of particular motorists for more extensive field sobriety testing may require satisfaction of an individualized suspicion standard." [/rquoter]

Is a scan and a pat down qualify as a detention or an observation? I think an argument can be made that as long as someone isn't taken into custody, which that phrase above appears to address, these are observations as much as pulling over a driver. Also as I noted in a recent post not all travelers are subject to those searches.

That is a pretty strong point and agree that the intrusive nature of the techniques might disqualify them.

Except that if the courts rule as you believe it to be wrongly, even if they rule it rightly, that is very critical to any legal case regarding these policies. I would say that an argument on constitutionality is anything but silly.

Legality is critical to this argument as that determines whether the TSA can or cannot conduct this policy.

Anyway great post!

 

Not to mention that the shoe bomber was half white and half black, not middle eastern.

 

fair enough...you lucked out. but you are kind of taking that quote of mine out of context. we were speaking about the difference b/t field sobriety checkpoints and tsa 'screening' and relative degrees of invasiveness. w/ field sobriety checkpoints there is a preliminary screen before a more invasive test (field sobriety check, blood draw, ect). w/ the tsa there is no preliminary screen before being naked body scanned/molested. everyone (who gets screened) goes through the most invasive measures at the initial 'screening'.

and there are many examples of the tsa 'screening' everyone including pilots at certain airports - again, you apparently lucked out. last time i flew i was entering a terminal w/ 4 lines and only the furthest one on the right had the body scanners - everyone in that line was going through it including little kids. i had two different tsa chumps walk up and let me know that the line on the right was shorter and maybe id like to go through that one. i twice refused and the 2nd time a 3rd tsa chump came up swabbed my hands for chemical explosives. after going through the metal detector i was pulled aside and patted down and had my bags searched.

the tsa has indeed called for screening of everyone and it appears by the end of next year they will be closer to doing it. there are less than 200 scanners in our airports right now - by the end of 2011 there will be over 1,000. your odds of going through one will increase dramatically.

 

I'm glad you gave up on the argument that random sobriety testing is equivalent, judoka. But as for the rest of your post...

Read it again - they very specifically state that it is not for the courts to judge the technique - that is for "politically accountable" officials.

Of course it's subjective. Ergo, claiming this court case as precedence of some sort is nonsense.

The "silly" bit is in your and Major's reliance on the system as some sort of de facto perfect arbitrator despite obvious evidence of past abuses and mistakes, and the acknowledged subjectivity. FWIW,I think random sobriety checkpoints are similarly illegal.

 

What an absolutely insensitive and cowardly thing to say.

 

Agree to disagree. Insensitive? Probably. Cowardly? Only if you have no fear of being blown out of the sky.

Disagreeing with a policy or law does not give one the unfettered right to disregard it.

As a supporter of civil liberties and civil rights in my career choice, I understand your position; I just disagree with it in regards to public safety.

 

You got lucky. I went on two flights over this holiday and wasn't chosen for the body scanner either time. 0 for 2.

 

It will have to do, as I completely disagree with utter malarky you're slinging.

 

Ditto. As least your civil about it, right?

 

I try my best, even though you don't make much sense.

 

I would say that the scanner and pat downs are actually very similar to the sobriety checkpoints in that you have to pass through an initial security checkpoint where you ID is checked and only there do they decide who gets the extra scanning and / or pat down.

Again that may be your experience but from my own traveling experience that has not happened to me. As far as that one line having everyone scanned have you considered that was the line where they directed the people to be scanned to go through? From your example it sounds like the other lines were not being scanned.

They may want to do that but I doubt that will be technically feasible.

 

Where did you get that from? I will stand by that the Constitutional basis for the TSA policy can be found in the case law relating to things like sobriety checkpoints. You have raised some good points in regard to how they are different. They are but the basis for non-discretionary searches is still established in the Stitz and Fuentes rulings.

I'm not quite sure how this relates to what you were quoting me on as my quote was in regard to empirical evidence on effectiveness. That said yes they do state that it is not for the court to judge the technique which in legal parlance means that it is legal on Constitutional grounds but leave it up to politically accounted officials. That is exactly the position I have stated. This should be a matter for Congress rather than the courts as I don't think the courts will overturn it. Your points support that view.

I am not sure again what you are saying here. Your own argument does nothing to say this isn't a precedent. You make some very compelling arguments in regard to that the decision of the USSC was incorrect but that doesn't change that the ruling is a precedent.

And I find this line of argument very unusual. You may not agree with the USSC, I do quite often, but it is the ultimate determinative of what is legal and what is not. As I stated you make a very good argument for why the USSC may have ruled incorrectly in regard to Stitz and why they may not in this case but none of that changes that they are the ones who determine legality. You are certainly free to think that things like sobriety checkpoints are illegal but you don't have the power to make that so.

 

Since you have abondoned all sense of civility, I guess you are just too dense to understand any view but your own. Put me on ignore.

 

huh?

Was the use of the word "malarkey" offensive or something? I cannot understand how one can utilize the "makes us safer" argument in light of the obvious factual inconsistencies with said stance repeatedly referenced in this thread - ergo "malarkey". Accordingly, the "it's for our safety" argument is only valid if one ceases to think rationally and functions in some unnecessary level of fear. In short, a coward.

It's hardly uncivil to state the obvious. If you think I'm wrong - tell me why please.

 

You argued that my desire to drive in lieu of flying was daft based on potential sobriety checkpoints. Since you neglected to reply to the rebuttal in post 304 (first four sentences), I interpreted that as agreement.

While the policy may be plainly ineffective, the courts are not to judge on that criteria. This is important because it limits the argument that the court is evaluating; the obvious ineffectiveness of the body scanners will not (per this case) be taken into consideration by the courts. I bring this up because a rather large part of any reasonable argument about the scanners should reference their inability to perform as advertised and/or improve on less intrusive methods.

The argument you put forward was that the legality of sobriety checkpoints pointed to the acceptability of TSA nudie-scanners. As is evidenced by the careful statements I quoted from the USSC case this was very carefully restricted and ultimately subjective, making arguments regarding precedence shaky. I have been saying this since at least post 200, and probably before that as well.

Justtxyank responded to this attitude rather eloquently in post 155. Suffice it to say, that I don't base my understanding of right and wrong on what some nebulous bureaucratic process culminates in, particularly when historical precedence and common sense indicates that it's track record might not be perfectly stellar. Sure, call it legal or illegal - it matters very little to me.

 

Did I miss that? I will have to go back and reread it. My time is often limited and for the sake of expediency I often skim over posts and sometimes don't get back to a thread for several days or weeks as I get caught up in other threads. That said I think if you are intent on avoiding invasive searches, I consider sobriety tests (the kind that make you recite the alphabet backward and etc.) to be invasive, you could still be subject to those driving. You are right that driving eliminates the chances of a TSA search but doesn't eliminate the possiblity of some other intrusive and discretionless search by some other government authority. Also as I noted in either case it is a case of odds. I have never gone through a TSA scanner and only twice have been pulled over for a further screening (once was in Japan so not done by TSA). I have been pulled over once in a sobriety checkpoint, just looked at me and let me go, and three times in checkpoints to search for illegal immigrants in the car. I have been flying longer than I have been driving but in both driving and flying its neither guarenteed that I will get some intrusive screening or that I won't.

While the court in Stitz says it is not judging the effectiveness they are not denying them on reasonable grounds either and as such saying that the overall concept is allowed and they are not going to rule on the specifics. They are basically punting and if they take the same atitude towards the scanners and pat downs then they would leave it up to the TSA to decide what is reasonable.

The court is the one that decides and where it is established that they allow for discretionless searches the TSA scans as discretionless searches would be a precendent. Further since in Stitz as you note they don't rule on the specific effectiveness of the techniques that would make it even more of a precedent since the specific techniques are not relevant just the issue of whether the state has an interest in discretionless searches. Now you have a point that perhaps the technique is unreasonable but that doesn't rule out the issue of whether the state has a compelling interest and is Constitutionally allowed to do so. From the TSA argument I would see it as this: "The court established under Stitz and Fuentes that discretionless searches are legal and the court has no say in the specific techniques." You can choose to ignore the precedent and focus on the techniques but as long as the precedent is there, and even more that the precedent is to leave the techniques up to others, I would say that winning a court case is much harder.

The precedent is that discretionless searches are allowed not the specifics of how they are conducted. As you note the court has punted on that specifics.

And you are free to ignore the consequences of illegal or legal as I have said before my interest is in the Constitutional questions which are about legal or illegal. Also if you want this policy overturned I think it is an important discussion regarding how to do so.

Not leaving the debate but just wanted to say this has been an excellent and illuminating debate and I really appreciate the well reasoned arguments you are making.

 

I don't see things in absolutes. You're neither wrong nor right. I don't automatically believe someone is wrong if they disagree with me.

I stated this before:

Disagreeing with a law or policy does not give you permission to disregard it.

Whether it is a good law, a bad law, a poorly administered law, whatever; if you disregard it and get arrested, tazed, or thrown in jail, you have brought it upon yourself. If the situation is funny, I will laugh.

I'm not completely happy with the current situation in our airports, and never stated otherwise. I do believe there is a legitimate need to ensure public safety and I believe it is our government's responsibility to ensure our safety.

Scanners and searches are better than nothing at all. Could it be administered better? Probably. Your alternative is what?

 

A fair point, but I do think it necessary to counter that civil disobedience has been a very effective tool in righting a number of societal wrongs.

I have made several observations in this regard throughout this thread.

 

Total agreement on civil disobedience providing impetus for positive change.

Sorry for the earlier exchange. We probably agree more on more issues than not.