Ron Paul to TSA: Enough is Enough.

[Parker2112]

d-N5adYM7Kw

[Parker2112]

Michael Chertoff is selling scanners? wtf? :(

[The Reckoning]

gotta love the victoria label underneath him when he speaks on C-Span

[Parker2112]

Michael Chertoff is selling scanners? wtf? :(

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123102821.html

[BlairForceDejuan]

http://www.anunews.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/aa-Ron-Paul-connecting-to-Founding-Fathers.jpg

[Parker2112]

twSGJfb6aGw

[boutons_deux]

Congress voted down the funds for TSA's full body xray machines, but TSA did an end run and used stimulus funds to buy them.

The airport full-body scanners are made by ex-DHS chief Michael Chertoff's consulting client

http://www.americablog.com/2010/11/airport-full-body-scanners-are-made-by.html

[RandomGuy]

I think we have gone way past any reasonable cost/benefit balance when it comes to airplane security.

I actually hope that AQ remains fixated on planes, because they could so easily do more damage elsewhere.

Even if airport security remained unchanged, and all they did was lock and reinforce cockpit doors, another 9-11 would not happen.

The jackasses with box cutters ONLY got to take over planes and crash them, because the passengers went along with it after the crew was killed/incapacitated. Flight 93 passengers were the first to realize what was really going on, the others were tricked into compliance.

The reaction of the flight 93 passengers was a rational response to it, and would be the same response of any group of passengers of a high-jacked flight today. For this reason, worring about highjackings is silly.

Sure a lot of this is to prevent bomb materials from being smuggled on board, but the complexity of smuggling, assembling, and detonating a bomb is a bit apparent in the numerous failed attempts.

I just don't see the benefits outweighing the costs.

[Parker2112]

I think we have gone way past any reasonable cost/benefit balance when it comes to airplane security.

I actually hope that AQ remains fixated on planes, because they could so easily do more damage elsewhere.

Even if airport security remained unchanged, and all they did was lock and reinforce cockpit doors, another 9-11 would not happen.

The jackasses with box cutters ONLY got to take over planes and crash them, because the passengers went along with it after the crew was killed/incapacitated. Flight 93 passengers were the first to realize what was really going on, the others were tricked into compliance.

The reaction of the flight 93 passengers was a rational response to it, and would be the same response of any group of passengers of a high-jacked flight today. For this reason, worring about highjackings is silly.

Sure a lot of this is to prevent bomb materials from being smuggled on board, but the complexity of smuggling, assembling, and detonating a bomb is a bit apparent in the numerous failed attempts.

I just don't see the benefits outweighing the costs.

Man, its not a cost benefit analysis...how can you not even touch on the rights of Americans undergoing these evasive security practices? How can we not be more aware and more vigilant after the events during the Bush admin?

You are way too trusting of fed govt, and much too dismissive of infringement on citizens rights, RG.

[Galileo]

9/11 was an inside job!

[RandomGuy]

Man, its not a cost benefit analysis...how can you not even touch on the rights of Americans undergoing these evasive security practices? How can we not be more aware and more vigilant after the events during the Bush admin?

You are way too trusting of fed govt, and much too dismissive of infringement on citizens rights, RG.

Where is the "right" to board an AIRPLANE is anywhere in the Constitution?

Everything boils down to cost/benefit analysis, even if the cost is forgone rights, although in this case, I don't see what right is being violated.

I just think its stupid.

[Parker2112]

Where is the "right" to board an AIRPLANE is anywhere in the Constitution?

Everything boils down to cost/benefit analysis, even if the cost is forgone rights, although in this case, I don't see what right is being violated.

I just think its stupid.

Its not as clear cut as this, but I bet you didnt know that you have the constitutional right to interstate travel.


"The constitutional right to travel from one State to another . . . has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?383/745), 757.

[RandomGuy]

Its not as clear cut as this, but I bet you didnt know that you have the constitutional right to interstate travel.

I know.

The government in this case is not prohibiting me from traveling. I could just as easily, and far more cheaply take a bus. Or for that matter, drive, or take a train, etc.

It is merely setting conditions for safety for one MODE of travel, a power fully within the scope of government that 99.9% of the population would agree on being within the realm of the government to set.

There are no rights being infringed. The purpose of the machines is not to gather evidence for prosecution, it is to ensure safety.

Now, can you, or can you not, tell me what specific right is infringed?

[RandomGuy]

Just to be clear:

I still think the searches and machines are stupid. I think it is a waste of money, and would be all for not doing either.

Hell, we could simply let the market decide.

"Here are the less safe, no-pat down flights, and here are the safer pat-down x-ray your clothes flights, you choose which you want."

I just don't think there is some monumental injustice going on.

[Parker2112]

I know.

The government in this case is not prohibiting me from traveling. I could just as easily, and far more cheaply take a bus. Or for that matter, drive, or take a train, etc.

It is merely setting conditions for safety for one MODE of travel, a power fully within the scope of government that 99.9% of the population would agree on being within the realm of the government to set.

There are no rights being infringed. The purpose of the machines is not to gather evidence for prosecution, it is to ensure safety.

Now, can you, or can you not, tell me what specific right is infringed?

when a right is made so difficult that many wont choose it, it is infringed. You cant legally make a wife tell here husband she before she has an abortion because it has that very chilling effect.

And 2. you can make a strong case that air travel is a necessity of modern life, and must be preserved without these heavy handed search techniques.

And 3. I am sure someone will claim this in a court of law. Probably ACLU.

[Parker2112]

Just to be clear:

I still think the searches and machines are stupid. I think it is a waste of money, and would be all for not doing either.

Hell, we could simply let the market decide.

"Here are the less safe, no-pat down flights, and here are the safer pat-down x-ray your clothes flights, you choose which you want."

I just don't think there is some monumental injustice going on.

airplanes are missles, and so any unsafe plane means potential endangerment to those on the ground, so this defeats the purpose.

[Parker2112]

Ron is not the only guy standing up to TSA:

San Mateo DA Steve Wagstaffe Promises to Prosecute Overly Touchy Pat Downs (http://www.bermanpost.com/2010/11/san-mateo-da-steve-wagstaffe-promises.html)

http://www.bermanpost.com/2010/11/san-mateo-da-steve-wagstaffe-promises.html

[Parker2112]

Florida airport to opt out of TSA screening

http://wdbo.com/localnews/2010/11/sanford-airport-to-opt-out-of.html

The backlash continues over those new TSA screening measures, and now one Central Florida airport has decided to go with a private security screening firm.
Orlando Sanford International Airport has decided to opt out from TSA screening.
“All of our due diligence shows it’s the way to go,” said Larry Dale, the director of the Sanford Airport Authority. “You’re going to get better service at a better price and more accountability and better customer service.”
(http://www.efoodsdirect.com//index.html?aid=13&adid=43)
Dale says he will be sending a letter requesting to opt out from TSA screening, and instead the airport will choose one of the five approved private screening companies to take over.

[Marcus Bryant]

One would think it would be a 4th amendment violation to require a nude scan of your person, as well as to face a government official groping you if you did not comply, without probable cause other than simply attempting to board a commercial aircraft. At least that would have been a violation of the 4th amendment as it was understood way back in the last century. That the right to be secure in one's person is rationalized away by fear and bogus cost/benefit hubris speaks well of how cowed this nation has become thanks to nineteen assholes, a handful of boxcutters, and opportunistic politicians and other assorted cranks.

[ElNono]

I just heard the TSA chief will be making the rounds on GMA and the rest of the morning shows tomorrow to 'clarify' and 'dispel myths' about the new TSA guidelines.
In other words, more taxpayer money going into promotional campaigns for the shit sandwich we're forced to eat.

[ElNono]

airplanes are missles, and so any unsafe plane means potential endangerment to those on the ground, so this defeats the purpose.

Again, a locked up, secured cockpit is all you need to prevent the missile scenario. There's no need for pat-downs or expensive scanners to prevent that.

[Winehole23]

This policy goes way too far. I can't see this getting regularized without severe attrition to the customer base for air travel in/into the US, but I've under-estimated the credulity/pusillanimity of Americans before.

(fingers crossed)

[Parker2112]

Again, a locked up, secured cockpit is all you need to prevent the missile scenario. There's no need for pat-downs or expensive scanners to prevent that.

nah-uh. bomb in coach still sends debris down from the sky on bystanders

[ElNono]

nah-uh. bomb in coach still sends debris down from the sky on bystanders

My definition of missile is guided. Otherwise is just an explosion.

The latter being a possibility even with pat-downs and fancy scanners, as has been pointed out in a few articles posted here a few times.

[Winehole23]

Because of the vanishingly small risk of people on the ground being struck by falling debris, we must all abide the TSA's genital pat-downs serenely and philosophically.

Hilarious. Even moreso emanating from a self-styled champion of liberty.

[Parker2112]

Because of the vanishingly small risk of people on the ground being struck by falling debris, we must all abide the TSA's genital pat-downs serenely and philosophically.

Hilarious. Even moreso emanating from a self-styled champion of liberty.

Not talking about sticking with TSA procedures. Talking about why signed releases come up short. How do you get me advocating for TSA searches from that, numbnuts?

[Parker2112]

what a numbnuts.

[Stump]

The jackasses with box cutters ONLY got to take over planes and crash them, because the passengers went along with it after the crew was killed/incapacitated. Flight 93 passengers were the first to realize what was really going on, the others were tricked into compliance.
In the defense of those passengers, I don't think they ever considered that it was a suicide mission. They probably figured they were being held for ransom. Can you blame them? I don't think something like 9/11 had ever happened before.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.anunews.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/aa-Ron-Paul-connecting-to-Founding-Fathers.jpg
No...

Wrong type of doctor. Don't you know, they sent Paul to congress because nobody else knows how to read the constitution. It's not dying, just ignored.

[Winehole23]

what a numbnuts.I can see where maybe I misconstrued something you said. What did you mean by stressing the danger of falling debris?

[Capt Bringdown]

Ron just wants to return airport security to his private sector buddies. We know how well that worked out on 9/11.

[Das Texan]

Ron just wants to return airport security to his private sector buddies. We know how well that worked out on 9/11.


Remind us about that. It failed exactly how?