By Ron Paul:

“It establishes that airport security screeners are not immune from any US law regarding physical contact with another person, making images of another person, or causing physical harm through the use of radiation-emitting machinery on another person. It means they are subject to the same laws as the rest of us.

Write your representative HERE.


YouTube - Enough Is Enough!

Full Bill

Mods: Can we keep this as a separate thread so it doesn't get buried inside of the "combined TSA: thread?

 

If Ron Paul is for it, i'm against it.

I'm sure there are plenty of others with that view too.

 

Yeah, because auditing the fed, ending foreign wars, reducing federal spending and shrinking the federal government back to within it's constitutional mandates are all BAD things, right?

Far better to let the bankers make off with trillions of your children's dollars and government agencies run amok with unlimited power and budgets while we all mouth breathe in front of our televisions and blame the troubles of our country on some fictitious enemy.

 

That's keeping an open mind when making a decision.Is this how you make all your decisions?

 

Give me liberty, or give me death!

I did not go to Afghanistan and Iraq to suffer this humiliation in my own country.

End the gestapo tactics now, and provide us with real security.

 

Wonder why the TSA is now using more 'intrusive' measures, including full-body scans and pat-downs?

To hear the whiners, they are doing it for no reason. However, I 'm sure the screeners don't enjoy their new duties, nor would the TSA spend a lot of money on body-scanners when all Federal budgets are strapped.

I would think it is because they have credible intelligence that suggests or confirms that the terrorists are hiding explosives in the areas of their person that were previously 'off-limits.' I think it is also why the Feds are quiet or limited on explanations why this is necessary.

When you go to a doctor, it is understood that he may touch you.

Most states have an implied-consent law for driving, which means if you drive and are pulled over, the police can test your BAC.

No one is forced to go to a doctor, drive a car, or buy an airline ticket. If you choose to fly, you choose to be screened.

I would rather passengers be over-screened than let one more terrorist attack be successful.

 

I'd rather die from a terrorist attack in a free country than in a prison because my country went old school Nazi Germany and started making up charges.

Give me Liberty, or Give me Death!

To the poster above, thank you for your service to our country, and this is not how I envisioned our government thanking you for your service... by continually encroaching upon our Constitutional Rights as American citizens.

 

Very poor analogy, bud. My doctor isn't going to tell me that by going into his office I've given up my right to not have my junk touched. Well, at least not yet...haven't made it through the thousands of pages of our new health care debacle. But the TSA is telling people they've given up their right to ask not to be felt up when they've entered the line, even if they elect to not take the flight.

"Whiners"? That's what you label people who are concerned about unreasonable searches? Sure, they're looking for something, but the discussion is: are these measures effective?, are they justified?, what is the cost? (in regard to dignity and personal rights), would they actually prevent an act of terrorism? (compared to other methods, e.g. Israel), are there better ways of catching terrorist?, and is the technology safe? to mention a few.

You have the mindset those in power love--don't question; just do what you're told to do.

 

"I was only following orders."

 

For the vets, here is something to ponder:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

"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."

Is it worth it? You swore to defend the Constitution first, and then follow orders. What was it you fought for? To live in a police state or have a free land?
Its like the ol CBA, No waivers No favors, I follow the Constitution!