Submit newsWe’re witnessing what appears to be a twisted psychological experiment in what indignities Americans are willing to endure in the interest of airport security.
First we were told to take our shoes off at the security checkpoint, and most Americans didn’t really object to that. Next came the nude scanners, and it has been amazing to watch Americans willingly go subject themselves to humiliation as a condition of their flying experience.
Now, those who have concerns about health risks or invasion of privacy are being subjected to a government-administered groping. The result is a steady stream of complaints from border to border from Americans who have been fondled, harassed, mocked and manhandled. Clearly, TSA is trying to use its police powers to make examples out of anyone who has the temerity to protest the body scanners.
That’s bad enough for the adults; parents are now being told they have the ultimate Hobson’s choice: irradiate their kids or subject them to fondling by a stranger in a government uniform.
The Fourth Amendment protects Americans and their property from unreasonable search and seizure and requires probable cause and warrants before such searches can take place. If the Fourth Amendment hasn’t been suspended, it has basically been torn in two by the Transportation Security Administration. The TSA knows not and cares not of the Constitution.
Last winter, Athol Rep. Phil Hart had an ahead-of-its time idea to ban the use of full body scanners in Idaho airports. Hart’s bill sailed through the House of Representatives, but got nowhere in the state Senate.
The state attorney general’s office contends the bill would have been unenforceable, but I’d dispute that. State and local governments have a compelling interest to protect their citizens and to interposition themselves between their residents and the national government when that government goes too far, as it has. The Hart legislation needs to come back and be passed.
New York City Councilman David Greenfield, a Democrat, has seized on the concept, and is working to ban the full body scanners from use there. The city owns the airports, Greenfield said, so it has the right to decide what kind of screening is used, “and if the TSA disagrees with us, they can sue us.”
Other cities are looking to boot the TSA from their airports, recognizing that federal law allows airports to use private security screeners. Idaho’s major airports need to draw the line in the sand and tell TSA to take a hike.
On Wednesday, Americans are urged to engage in a national protest by opting out of the full body scanners. My friends at Idahoans for Liberty will be doing a protest at the Boise airport at noon that day. But I hope the protest continues, today and every day, until each body scanner is removed, dismantled, and the federal government stops its assault on the Constitution and our freedoms.
- Wayne Hoffman is the executive director of the Idaho Freedom Foundation. E-mail him at wayne@idahofreedom.net.
FlyingSpaghettiTroll posted at 7:57 am on Sat, Dec 4, 2010.
Claudio,
Ideologically I don't support one country or another to rule the world as a vast empire. That being said, if one exists and behaves decently, I'll support it. Every empire has a load of dirty laundry; With Britain it was imperialism by brute force, now it's coercive economic jingoism. I don't care if this country expands or shrinks, so long as it does so ethically and other nations are pushed towards being more essentially decent in their decisions.
Claudio B posted at 10:27 am on Fri, Dec 3, 2010.
After reviewing "The Whole Body Scanners-are they safe" by Vadim Anonov, Dec. 3, 2010 I tend to agree with the author that clinical trials to establish government claims of scanner safety need to be conducted before the flying public is exposed to unknown radiation hazards.
Anonov, claims that little is known of the effects of "soft-x-ray" type radiation on human skin: "scary."
Claudio B posted at 8:23 am on Fri, Dec 3, 2010.
Troll, would U desire that that our country suffer the fate of the Brits? U might remember how Great Britain as the 19th century super power played the role of world peace keeper only to settle for a junior partnership with the U.S. after a couple of disastrous world wars.
Also, just curious, would U describe yourself as a Walt Minnick Democrat?
FlyingSpaghettiTroll posted at 9:12 pm on Thu, Dec 2, 2010.
Claudio, unfortunately yes; doubtlessly. I think the only major group of people who don't see it that way is a certain demographic of Americans. I wasn't really opposed to Afghanistan; that had some necessity. Iraq though? Oil war. Religious tension isn't helping anything either; it's a great recruitment tool on both sides, along with faith-based patriotism.
I see value in the US military as a peacekeeper in the world; it hasn't been one lately. There were some golden years of that though, sometime between the end of Vietnam and the beginning of the 2nd gulf. It wasn't perfect, but it was some of the best that the world had to offer in resolving dirty conflicts. Maybe we'll see that again.
Claudio B posted at 8:08 pm on Wed, Dec 1, 2010.
Troll, would U go so far as to say that our troops are involved in a Middle East oil war?[sad][sad][sad][sad]
FlyingSpaghettiTroll posted at 6:59 pm on Wed, Dec 1, 2010.
BAHAHAHHA
Pacundo, about 60,000/110,000 deaths in Iraq were innocent civilians killed my American troops. This country leads the world in global terrorism. You want to profile? Start turning an eye to our own troops.
And ya, you know what? They do keep an eye on right-wing groups, because there are some nutty ones out there. Do you think that the Christian Identity Movement goes unmonitored? Are you even aware of the leaked FBI report outlining concerns of the growth of militias bolstered by the religious right in this nation?
pacundo posted at 7:52 am on Wed, Dec 1, 2010.
Profiling is not out. You do not know what you are spouting off about. We have clearly identified the threat and know that the terrorist threat continues to stem from Muslim nations. Obviously, the Troll and other lefties will point out isolated incidents where home grown loons become terrorist. If you come from a Muslim nation, speak Farsi, or wear a burka prepare to be profiled. It is what it is. Do you really think that federal phone taps are targetted against Christian people that farm in Montana? Get a grip lefty. They are used to monitor Saudi nationals attending college in Moscow and other universities. Do you think the Mosque in our communities speads cheer? Get a grip they supported Sami AL Husein. Remember him? Obviously not.
FlyingSpaghettiTroll posted at 2:17 pm on Mon, Nov 29, 2010.
If profiling by race or country of birth is out, then I don't object; that's just making an educated guess about chosen behavior. At the same time, I have to shake my head at how obviously stupid some of these people are; one way tickets with cash and no luggage?
As a side note, one thing I must emphasize is that run of the mill murder by Americans kills more people than terrorism. Why isn't there a war on homicide instead?
William Jarrett posted at 1:06 pm on Mon, Nov 29, 2010.
FST,
There is a very big difference between profiling behaviors versus profiling ethnicity. Profiling ethnicity is just racism plain and simple so lets not pretend it's anything else otherwise OK. We are not talking about racial profiling.
Well trained security staff trained in rooting out and bringing suspicious behaviors to the surface are what is needed here not more stupid ineffectual policies. A system of search based on the laws of this nation which guarantees the protections outlined in the US Constitution and which are based upon the premise of actually having to have probable cause instead of randomly violating every other Tom, Dick, and Harry's privacy.
-------------------------------------------------------
Quotes from Isaac Yeffet, former head of security for El Al.
In 2002, we had Richard Reid, the shoe bomber. This man gave the security people all the suspicious signs that any passenger could show. The man got a British passport in Belgium, not in England. Number Two: he flew to Paris, he bought a one-way ticket from Paris to Florida. He paid cash. He came to the airport with no luggage. What else do I need to know that this passenger is suspicious?
Now we face the story with [Umar Farouk] Abdul Mutallab. We had all the information that we could dream the security people could get. He was on the list of people connected to al Qaeda. I don't need more to understand that when he comes, I am not looking for more evidence. He is suspicious; I have to take care of him. His father called the U.S. Embassy a month before he took the flight and told the U.S. Embassy that his son had called and said this was the last time you were going to hear from me. And the father warned the U.S. Embassy that his son was going to do something bad, watch him. What happened to this information?
The guy bought a ticket and paid $3,000 cash. ... No one knew the information that we had about him, no one could interview him and to ask him why is he flying to America.
It's mandatory that every passenger -- I don't care his religion or whatever he is -- every passenger has to be interviewed by security people who are qualified and well-trained, and are being tested all year long. I trained my guys and educated them, that every flight, for them, is the first flight. That every passenger is the first passenger. The fact that you had [safe flights] yesterday and last month means nothing. If you do not look at each passenger, something is wrong with your system.
----------------------------------------------------
For more on this article go to:
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-11/opinion/yeffet.air.security.israel_1_airport-security-isaac-yeffet-el-al/2?_s=PM:OPINION
Having lived through a car bomb explosion while in Europe, I would wish this on no one. Airlines are only the beginning. I am not only worried about operatives sneaking in, but what they are bringing with them. We have some serious deficiencies in security, it's time we wake up.
FlyingSpaghettiTroll posted at 12:15 am on Mon, Nov 29, 2010.
Claudio,
Why would I find this true of only Americans? I'd have to be awfully obsessed over nationality to come to this conclusion. I find people the world over are largely stupid or greedy. I am a human, and I have been guilty myself. We always fight our self-interest until we are able to consider others lives as equally valuable as our own; the desperation of another becomes the same as our own.
Ignorance and stupidity are much more interesting. I am of our opinion that we are curious, and often rewarded for our curiosity. I find the ultimate (but paradoxically near-impossible) quest of attaining all knowledge is detrimental to the wonder we experience in life. It's paradoxically our meaning, our goal, and our destruction. What irks me is when the majority of the population lags behind on a subject that's important to our sense of well-being.
I don't despair human nature for its failings; I can't deny that we're at least decent enough to continue surviving without wiping out our own species. I can't say that the average person does not care for many of those around them who they know. To me though, we have a long ways to go in ethics, and it's discouraging at times to see how obviously we fail.
William,
Do you find it ethical to bother someone for their nation of birth or ethnicity? If so, how would you reduce the confirmation bias of profiling? Also, why focus on our boarders? Do you have an empirically based, rational argument for this emphasis? I ask because you tend to give a fact-based answer. So far others have given me emotion-laden conspiracy theories.
TruthFire posted at 9:46 pm on Sun, Nov 28, 2010.
I witnessed a groping 1st hand at the Boise airport Tuesday evening (11/23) while my son's flight was delayed. The poor guy was visible like in a creepy terrarium, in plain sight of the rows of chairs filled with people waiting to pick up their loved ones. His middle-aged bulge was exposed as his shirt was lifted up, and his open fly gaping as a gloved hand was inserted inside of his waistband. I first stared horrified, then looked away in embarrassment for the poor fellow. The TSA guy was professional, not creepy, but still--does it really have to come to this? I believe the real issue is that we have come to believe in America that objects are to blame, e.g. guns, knifes, shoes, underwear, ink toner cartridges, etc., rather than people with evil intent. Ideology, people brainwashed that their harmful actions are indeed virtuous, pose the greatest threat of all: "If the light that is in you be darkness, how great is that darkness."
SeasThyDay posted at 5:32 pm on Sat, Nov 27, 2010.
Fact: The security scanners are the equivalent of a strip search.
Fact: The pat down has very low odds of detecting explosives
Fact: The 4th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits unreasonable search and seizure.
Fact: Strip searches are only allowed with a warrant and probable cause.
Dare2bDull: How can you invoke the troops' defense of freedom and support the virtual strip search without cause of every man, woman and child who dares enter an airport?
The very freedom the troops are defending is based on the CONSTITUTION, you idiot!
I tell you what: why don't you lay down your right to keep and bear arms while you're at it! Oh, and let's take away your right to vote, too. (Although, based on your lack of judgement, I second taking away your right to vote -- and to exercise free speach, too, LOL.)
"Those who are willing to give up essential liberties for a feeling of security deserve neither freedom nor security." -- Benjamin Franklin.
And before you ask what would I do, I'll answer: Do like Israel and El Al Airlines. Use bomb sniffing dogs, hire experts at facial expression as TSA agents, and when behavior or profiles indicate a higher risk, then increase scrutiny. At least THAT isn't a violation of the 4th Amendment.
William Jarrett posted at 5:21 pm on Sat, Nov 27, 2010.
I generally don't agree with some of the other folks on this page however this time I cant help but agree with them on this issue.
This issue is a 4th amendment issue no matter which way you look at it. Agents of the government (TSA) are searching American citizens based upon the fact they merely want to fly rather than drive.
What bothers me about the whole concept of these searches is in the way in which they are applied. There is no probable cause standard or even reasonable and articulable suspicion standard being applied here. The premise of all these very personal intrusions is based solely on the idea that we must conduct these searches randomly or be branded as "profiling" .
You know there is an old saying "If it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, then it's a duck!" Profiling my eye ! Look at the model the Israeli's have adopted for their airline. For over 30 years they have had no problems. They don't even have as elaborate equipment as we do.
I really wouldn't have so many issues with the TSA's measures if there was some rhyme or reason to their madness. If asked to give up my rights I would rather refuse and suffer the inconvenience of driving.
I will not submit to any body scanners or pat searching of my person unless you can clearly demonstrate either reasonable and articulable suspicion or probable cause. Nobody deserves to receive such degrading treatment without just cause or due process.
I have already been subjected to the "you have been randomly selected routine" once before on a business trip and HARASSED by the TSA at every step along the way of my trip including when I had to change planes not only on the trip out but on my trip back as well. Funny but I never thought I fit the profile of a terrorist.
This is not security. This is the systematic dismantling of the constitution. Where the Federal government needs to be focusing it's energy is ON OUR BORDERS.[sad]
Claudio B posted at 2:12 pm on Sat, Nov 27, 2010.
Troll, U said "People are, on the whole, either stupid or dishonest." Why do U have such a low opinion of the American public? [sad][sad][sad][sad]
dare2bdull posted at 11:42 am on Sat, Nov 27, 2010.
Should I be surprised about all the TSA BS, here in Boise? NO I know better, living here the last 2 years, I am ashamed to admit. This is a town that cares more about the BSU Broncos, than our miltary service members. On Sept 8th, 2010, 2! count them 2! local military members were laid to rest, after loosing their life for freedom, but they barely rated a blurb on the news, but BSU vs. Virginia Tech was all you could talk about.
Safety? whats that? Wouldnt you rather be safe on your flight? Come on really, its quick & painless. By refusing the scan, and subjecting yourself to the pat down, you are opening yourself up to everything your worried about the body scan, it doesnt measure the size of your breasts or junk or record your name, so REALLY who cares!
There are thousands of troops overseas putting their lives on the line, fighting for our freedoms & safety, For what? a bunch of uncaring sniveling crybabies because someone might pat them down and they dont like it and who dont give our service personnel a second thought, and take the freedoms they provide for granted. A major terrorist attack was just thwarted in Portland Oregon, yesterday! was in in the idaho paper NO.
Whether you believe in the war effort or not, our troops deserve Your support, there days are much harder than yours. Get grip people! Grow up! If you dont like it, dont fly. The world is bigger than the Broncos!
FlyingSpaghettiTroll posted at 8:21 am on Thu, Nov 25, 2010.
rosco1, why don't you tell us why this article is wrong?
rosco1 posted at 3:10 pm on Wed, Nov 24, 2010.
Only Hoffman could come up with such a lame story. Of course Delmar Stone is in the same level
FlyingSpaghettiTroll posted at 6:20 am on Wed, Nov 24, 2010.
WonderY,
Profiling has a problem. People are, on the whole, either stupid or dishonest. History has proven the case that if you allow profiling, people will take statistics based on profiling as evidence that the program is working. The problem is that the average person doesn't get confirmation bias all that well. The ones who do often simply enjoy calling their use of it a success.
Where your obama-tsa-union conspiracy is coming from or headed, I haven't the faintest clue.
Claudio B posted at 6:13 am on Wed, Nov 24, 2010.
It is not the technicality of our 4th Amendment rights that is at issue here, but the fact that our government has grossly misread our culture.
As a people we Americans are very deffensive of our personal privacy. Our schools teach our children "this is my body." Voyeurism is a crime, can the actions of the federal government be compared to institutionalised voyeurism? Do the TSA agents find this practice as distasteful as does the flying public? Is there a better way to insure the safety of our flying public?
I believe what we have is a government that has become estranged from the American people, a government that needs to be brought in line with our cultural values.
WonderY posted at 4:03 pm on Tue, Nov 23, 2010.
Pacundo and the Troll both make good points. It is our government doing this to us. But consider this. It is the TSA that is bearing the brunt of what Napolitano and Obama are pushing. The TSA employees are working people like you and I. But they are now seen as the enemy by the public - and the TSA agents are looking for a voice. In comes the Union to the rescue. Just as Obama wants. Just think what we would face if the TSA was unionized - which at least for now is not allowed. And yes - PROFILE! El Al of Israel does this very successfully. Everyone flying there gets divided into two classes - Pleasure and Business. Everyone is asked questions..very simple one's if you have a legitimate answer. Those that are traveling from areas known to harbor terrorist/radicals (Yemen/Afghanistan/etc) get a more thorough questioning and search. They don't harass their citizens randomly. They are proactive as opposed to us being reactive. Do you really feel safer by what the TSA is doing - probably not. So maybe, just maybe, there is something more going on than meets the eye (even with a full-body scanner).
pacundo posted at 10:44 am on Tue, Nov 23, 2010.
Nice lefty slam Wayne. Get a grip. If we want to fly safely and not profile the Arab terrorists then we have to submit to the scanner or pat search if you opt out. Otherwise drive. The obvious solution is to direct this to the threat... Middle eastern people, Muslims and people flying to and from terror watch list nations.
FlyingSpaghettiTroll posted at 2:38 pm on Mon, Nov 22, 2010.
Proletariat,
Actually the TSA decides these things, so it's the government mandating that flying on a plane means being strip-seached at will. This is a violation of the fourth amendment.
If such a thing were to be a private industry standard, I'm not sure it would be prosecuted. On the other hand, if there are no other alternatives then it'd be an oligopoly via cartel just about; nailing them under something like price discrimination might be an option. Perhaps even an accusation of tying would work, given that the security screenings were to be proven ineffective for security purposes; they could be sold for entertainment purposes only.
But that's the kind of stupid reasoning you'd see come out of a legal system like this one. What it comes down to is that forcing people to be arbitrarily searched, whether by coercion through monopoly of a service or through law is unethical. To support something purely because it is legal is a logical fallacy if law is to be a reflection of ethics. If law is not based on ethics, then it is arbitrary.
Proletariat posted at 8:43 am on Mon, Nov 22, 2010.
Mr. Hoffman is more off base than usual. The 4th Amendment does not apply in this situation. By purchasing a ticket, he and other flyers agree to searches. He and everyone else has an option - don't fly.
ncidaho posted at 7:12 am on Mon, Nov 22, 2010.
I would be more impressed with Mr. Harts idea if he wasn't a thief and paid his taxes.