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

FROM THREAD IN THE HANGOUT

when the TSA was set up there was nothing about groping/naked body scanning. this was an unnecessary, reactionary move to something that could have and should have been prevented. and there is nothing "legitimate" about such practices. again, just b/c the government claimed the "legal authority" does not make it "legitimate".

the new TSA procedures do nothing to protect us from being blown up - they actually are putting us in more danger by creating bottlenecks at the point of entry.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

a couple hundred thousand people a year die in car wrecks - by your standards i guess we should ban cars - its all in the name of "protecting" people, right? or what about prescription drugs - they kill alot more people a year than terrorists so i guess we should ban them too? or drowning in swimming pools - we should ban pools - its all about safety and protecting us right?

there really shouldnt be a debate - it is pretty cut-and-dry.

thats cool - some of us are on the side of the constitution and basic human dignity and others are not.

 

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...texas-lawmakers-pass-tsa-anti-groping-bills/1

Jun 28, 2011
Texas lawmakers pass TSA 'anti-groping' bills

Both houses of the Texas Legislature have passed "anti-groping" bills that would criminalize intentional, inappropriate touching during airport security pat-downs by the TSA.

But supporters of a tougher line against TSA say the new versions have been watered down too much, prompting a small group of protesters at the Capitol in Austin on Monday to shout "traitor" and "treason" at lawmakers.

The House's tougher initial version appeared to be going nowhere last week after House Speaker Joe Strauss, a Republican, called it a "publicity stunt" aimed at making a symbolic attack on the federal government.

Changes were then made at the recommendation of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, a Republican, and others. The revisions give security officials a defense to prosecution if they act with "reasonable suspicion" that the search is necessary.

The new version would still make it a misdemeanor punishable with up to a year in jail to touch a person's sexual organs and other sensitive areas.

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, KXAN TV reports, praised the Senate version:

We all want our skies to be safe and we all want to fight terrorism. But airport security must focus on stopping terrorists, not harassing innocent travelers. With the passage of SB 29, the Texas Legislature is not only telling the TSA to change their policies − we're telling the Obama Administration we will not be intimidated and we will vigorously defend our Constitutional rights.

Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, says Texas leaders have taken their first stand on behalf of state sovereignty and the 10th Amendment, which defines federalism, the Tyler Morning Telegraph reports.

The Republican-controlled chambers have until Wednesday to resolve several differences between their bills before sending one to Gov. Rick Perry.

 

no one is being "molested" jo mama. I have been the subject of police patdowns as well as TSA patdowns and they are not dissimilar. a federal authority is a federal AUTHORITY. a random search is RANDOM. I hate the people who complain in line during security- THEY are the ones holding everything up.

the mouthbreathers screaming "sexual molestation" are inexperienced travelers who would rather speak up about their indignities when we all know it is safer to fly now than it was 10 years ago.

I do concede that the TSA has a retroactive way of handling potential threats (attempted show bomber? take off your shoes! attempted underwear bomber? check their underwear!) instead of being pro-active like in Israel.


I also have a problem with the way air attendants have a power trip every time a backpack is sticking out of the seat or a seatback didnt make it all the way upright- they have a federal compliance law that makes you a criminal if you speak up or argue with a flight attendant.

but I just write a letter or make a phone call and the airline usually tries and investigate an incident and provide feedback and even compensation in some cases.

some people just don't know how and when to flex their consumer muscles vs. their civil rights...

 

I'm not surprised, but I am regardless disappointed that Rashmon is still arguing in such a fashion.

EDIT: With all due respect, across110thstreet, please read this thread for a plethora of information contrary to your argument.

 

Ha! I get selected at "random" pretty much every time I go through an airport. You know who else gets selected at "random" with me? Anyone who looks middle eastern. Oh, and you know who else gets selected at "random" frequently? Attractive women.

The ones holding up the line are TSA, and all the scaredy-cats who let out a little trickle of pee anytime someone who doesn't look like honky middle-class America boards an airplane.

These measures aren't making anyone safer - but they give the cowards a nice illusion of safety. Personally, I'd prefer to still have the rights afforded to me under the 4th amendment.

 

what makes you think I haven't been following this thread since it was started?

what are you trying to refute in my "argument"? that flying isn't safer?

that inexperienced mouthbreathers get upset easily over their civil liberties and make youtube videos about it showing how little they can deal with a society?

that I can generally understand the annoyance of dealing with security but it is part of the price you pay to travel the "friendly" skies?

my problem is with air marshals and flight attendants, do I seem that extreme?

 

You seem angry at me.

1) Flying is not safer due to the upgraded scanning/groping. This has been repeatedly and effectively argued in this thread. The TSA even admit it themselves inasmuch as the situation that prompted the techniques would still be undetectable (underwear bomber). Report after report details how "contraband" is still readily smuggled onto planes (even knives and glocks).

2) "Mouthbreather" argument is vapid - no comment.

3) The price I pay should not be arbitrary, ineffective, and unreasonable. That is why we have things like the 4th amendment.

4) You don't seem extreme, just confused.

 

not angry or confused with you per se, but with the TSA protesters who show up to airports to capture civil liberties being violated. the ones who film their way through security are expecting conflict.



how often do you fly?

 

I cannot speak to their motives, nor am I at all interested in them.

What does that matter?

 

just curious how frequent flyers feel about the TSA rules, patdowns, and screening procedures vs. someone who might not get the concept of airport security.

it sounds like you are savvy in the ways of air travel.

is taking your shoes off and being subject to a random patdown really that much of an inconvenience?

you can always just go through the scanner and forgo that whole process, then comes the argument of archived images of naked people.

I get your argument, I really do. how much do we sacrifice in the name of liberty, etc...

 

Disagreement places me against the constitution and basic human dignity?

That should be a crime. I should be searched and arrested.

Does the cognitive dissonance make your head hurt?

 

A standard "cop" patdown I think could be construed as reasonable, albeit still basically ineffective for the determined felon. What I dislike are the "enhanced" patdowns. Those are both unreasonable and ineffective. That combination, as I mentioned way earlier in the thread, should signal the "break point".

Yes, a privacy concern and a radiation concern (note: TSA employees are now freaking out about this). More to the point, you can be selected for enhanced patdowns regardless of your willingness to walk through the nudie-machine.

Pretty much. I'm not a security abolitionist, but lets not be dumb and wasteful either.

 

touching peoples genital areas is by definition, molestation. its even worse when you dont have probable cause. if a sworn police officer, w/ 10x's the training of a TSA agent, did what the TSA does they would be arrested and charged w/ sexual assault.

i have been the subject of police patdowns and TSA patdowns as well. the key differences is that the TSA had no probable cause and the cops didnt rub up on my ball sack.

so insightful!

this attitude would have served you well in 1930's germany.

i hate people who blindly go along w/ what the government tells them to do. i hate people who hate those who are standing up for the principles this country was founded on.

im actually quite an experienced traveler and i am screaming about "sexual molestation". the pilots union, who are more experienced travelers than all of us also called it such.

and the new procedures do NOTHING to make us safer.

you have clearly been terrorized into accepting the TSA measures - you are a scared coward who actually thinks having a bunch of glorified mall security sticking their hands down little kids and old ladies pants keeps you "safe" when the reality is that if procedures already in place were properly utilized the "underwear bomber" would not have even made it to the gate and 9/11 would have never happened.

 

you have already made this decision for yourself. you are clearly willing to sacrifice quite a bit in the name of "security". you think its ok to sacrifice the 4th amendment and basic human dignity in the name of "feeling" safe. the terrrorists have got you beat.

 

your positions on the TSA place you against the constitution and basic human dignity.

 

my 60 year old mother was forced to go through the body scanner and then afterwards, got the full patdown.

i see them scanning/groping women and little kids alot more than men.

im not a security abolitionist either. people try to make it out like if you are against "enhanced patdowns" it means you want no security whatsoever...its ridiculous.

 

Up until the past 6 months I used to fly quite a bit for work, this has to do with the slowness of my business and not TSA procedures. I have been patted down but have yet to go through a scanner. While I think there is enough gray areas to make these policies constitutional I don't agree with them.

What it comes down to me is how effective these are versus the cost in terms of money, time and aggravation. From what I have seen these techniques are of extremely limited effectiveness and not worth the cost.

 

but the government "authorities" said the scanners were safe!

 

dude, you don't have to fly. but if you do, I hope I don't see in line at security with a video camera ready to put it on youtube and make yourself an Internet martyr.

you need to relax with the "you are a coward" talk,
Mr. believe everything Alex Jones tells you on prisonplanet type.

 

Exactly. We can disagree on the constitutionality, it's ultimately subjective (annoyingly ). The facts are not subjective: It's ineffective and wasteful.